COL.  GEORGE  WASHINGTON  FLOWERS 
MEMORIAL  COLLECTION 


DUKE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
DURHAM.  N.  C. 


PRESENTED  BY 

W.  W.  FLOWERS 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https  ://arch  i ve . o rg/detai  I s/h  i sto  ryof  vi  rg  i n i 0 1 roya 


OF  THE 


The  Negro’s  Vicious  Influence  in  Politics. 


. . . BY  . . 

WILLIAM  L.  ROYALL, 

Of  the  Richmond,  Va.,  and  New  York  City  Bars. 


RICHMOND,  VA,: 

GEO.  M.  WEST,  Publisher. 
1897. 


Cop.yrighted,  1897, 

BV 

WILLIAM  L.  ROYALL. 


T'rrVTTVTTTTTTTTWTTV? 


PREFACE. 


ThE  riCA' 


L- 


'!^n 


The  world  has  received  an  erroneous  impression  of  Vir- 
ginia’s action  since  our  great  civil  war  respecting  her 
public  debt.  The  belief  is  abroad  that  she  failed  to 
measure  up  to  the  obligations  of  her  duty,  and  that  she  has, 
in  effect,  repudiated  a part  of  her  just  obligations. 

I am  a son  of  Virginia,  and  I have  spent  my  life  upon  her 
soil  and  amongst  her  children.  Her  good  name  is  very  dear 
to  me,  and  I am  naturall3'  very  anxious,  therefore,  that  she 
shall  carrj'  no  obloquy  that  is  not  justly  her  due.  I have 
accordingly  written  this  historj'  of  the  case  to  set  all  of  its 
facts  before  an  impartial  world,  in  order  that  Virginia  ma.v 
be  judged  justlj'  when  final  judgment  is  passed. 

When  these  facts  are  impartially  considered  bj’  fair-minded 
men,  I believe  there  will  be  a general  consensus  amongst  them 
that  the  old  and  true  Virginia  acted  a very  heroic  part  in  this 
drama,  and  that  its  outcome  would  not  have  oast  one  stain 
upon  her  escutcheon  if  a superior  power — the  vis  major — had 
not  inflicted  upon  her  the  cruel  wrong  of  negro  suffrage. 
Whatever  blemish  rests  upon  her  fair  name  .lies  at  the  door 
of  those  who  made  the  stupendous  blunder  of  converting  the 
negro  into  a voter  w'hen  he  had  had  no  sort  of  antecedent 
preparation  for  it. 

The  story  is  a sad  and  a pitiful  one,  but  the  heroic  people 
of  Virginia,  who  struggled  so  manfully  to  do  their  whole  duty 
under  such  terrible  odds  and  discouragements,  have  a right 
to  ask  the  civilized  world  that  it  shall  at  least  inform  itself  of 
all  the  actual  facts  before  it  condemns  them.  I have  collected 
those  facts  in  the  following  pages,  and  I submit  them  to  the 
candid  judgment  of  mankind. 


309381 


' A 


^Av'.^  A 'V5 

8£a  *<  ^ \ C" 

% T^  a ■ ^ 

,\  - V.  ,v“  {.  4^ 


■>'  '-C  ^ 

o ^ 


Ji3  -;i 


?tc| 


OF  THE 

VIRGINIA  DEBT  CONTROVERSY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

About  I820  the  state  of  Virginia  adopted  the 
policy  of  borrowing  money  to  aid  works  of 
internal  improvement.  The  plan  engaged  in 
was  to  borrow,  giving  her  own  bonds,  bearing  6 per 
cent,  interest,  and  with  the  money  to  become  part- 
ner in  the  building  of  railroads,  canals,  or  turnpikes 
by  taking  stock  in  companies  organized  for  some 
such  purposes.  In  this  way,  prior  to  our  late  civil 
war,  she  borrowed  and  lent  out  to  internal  improve- 
ment companies  a very  large  sum  of  money.  The 
principal  amounted  January  1,  1861,  to  $38,710,- 
857.22.  (See  Senate  Document  Uo.  24,  session  of 


309381 


6 


History  of  the 


1877-’78.)  She  paid  interest  on  what  she  had  bor- 
rowed duly  and  regularly  without  any  trouble  until 
the  war  came  on.  She  paid  little  or  none  after  that 
event.  Her  bonds  were  almost  all  owned  and  held 
in  Europe  or  in  the  Northern  States,  and  communi- 
cation with  the  owners  was  cut  ofi  by  the  war.  At 
the  end  of  the  war  she  found  herself  confronted 
with  the  very  large  principal  of  this  debt,  with  its 
five  years  of  accumulated  and  overdue  interest. 
Her  condition  at  that  juncture  was  not  one  calcu- 
lated to  make  her  rulers  look  upon  this  fact  with 
any  degree  of  contentment.  Ho  fair  judgment  of 
this  matter  can  be  arrived  at  until  there  is  a perfect 
understanding  of  that  condition. 

Before  the  war  Virginia  was  a slave  State.  The 
cities  and  towns  were  small ; the  population  mainly 
agricultural.  The  population  was  not  at  all  dense ; 
it  was  rather  sparse.  The  great  bulk  of  the  labor 
was  slave  labor.  There  were  many  small  farmers 
who  did  their  own  work,  and  some  white  men  hired 
themselves  for  wages;  hut  these  furnished  compara- 
tively a small  part  of  the  labor.  The  bulk  of  it  was 
furnished  by  the  negro  slaves.  The  great  body  of 
slave-owners  was  unused  to  manual,  or,  in  fact,  any 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy, 


other  labor.  It  was  an  easy-going,  good-natured, 
cultivated  population,  that  lived  indolently  on  the 
produce  of  the  soil  developed  by  the  labor  of  their 
slaves. 

^Yhen  the  war  ended  this  population  found  itself 
confronted,  suddenly  and  without  preparation,  with 
the  fact  that  its  labor  system  was  wholly  disorgan- 
ized and  blotted  out.  Men  who  had  never  done  an 
hour’s  work  with  their  hands  found  that  they  must 
till  their  fields  with  their  own  hands  or  see  their 
families  starve  before  their  eyes.  Not  only  so,  but 
in  large  districts  the  means  with  which  laud  is  tilled 
were  gone.  Virginia  had  beeu  the  battlefield  of  the 
Avar.  In  almost  every  county  the  horses,  cattle, 
sheep,  and  hogs  had  gone  to  satisfy  the  demands  of 
the  one  army  or  the  other.  The  white  people  were 
converted,  as  if  by  magic,  from  a prosperous  and 
contented  people  into  one  without  means  of  subsist- 
ence except  from  their  naked  fields. 

It  is  hard  for  one  who  did  not  live  iu  Virginia  to 
understand  how  completely  the  situation  of  the  peo- 
ple was  changed  by  the  war  from  one  of  prosperity, 
even  wealth,  to  one  of  the  most  abject  and  grinding 
povert}\  To  bring  home  to  the  reader  full  and 


8 


History  of  the 


complete  knowledge  of  the  state  of  the  case,  I will 
describe  in  detail  the  condition  of  and  changes  in 
one  family.  I select  my  own  family,  because  I 
know  with  certainty  the  facts  connected  with  it : 

My  maternal  grandmother  was  Jane  Marshall,  the 
youngest  sister  of  Chief-Justice  John  Marshall. 
She  lived  until  her  death,  in  1868,  with  her  daugh- 
ter, my  mother,  upon  my  mother’s  farm,  in  the 
lower  end  of  Fauquier  county,  Virginia.  Mj'  father, 
a Presbyterian  minister,  died  in  1856.  In  1860  my 
mother’s  family  consisted  of  herself,  my  grandmother 
before  spoken  of,  an  elderly  aunt,  and  my  mother’s 
children;  these  were  four  boys  and  three  girls. 
The  oldest  boy,  John,  was  a sound  man  physically, 
but  mentally  a wreck,  the  result  of  lifelong  epilepsy. 
The  next,  George,  was  a young  lawyer  in  Richmond. 
My  oldest  sister  was  married  to  a PresbjTerian  min- 
ister. The  next  sister  was  a young  lady  of  eighteen. 
I came  next,  a boy  of  sixteen.  A sister,  two  years 
younger,  followed  me,  and  a boy  of  eight  followed 
her.  All  of  us  lived  with  my  mother  upon  her  farm 
except  my  brother  George.  Our  farm  was  a fairly 
good  one  of  1,000  acres.  We  owned  ten  slaves,  and 
had  a little  money  at  interest.  The  farm  was  sufti- 


\'iRGiNiA  State  Debt  Controversy. 


9 


cientlj  supplied  with  horses,  cattle,  sheep,  and  hogs. 
From  the  farm,  as  cultivated  by  our  slaves,  and 
from  our  money  at  interest,  we  derived  an  income 
that  supported  the  family  in  great  comfort — I might 
almost  say  in  luxury,  W e kept  a two-horse  pleasure 
carriage  and  two  or  three  riding  horses.  My  brother 
George  had  been  educated  at  Princeton  and  the 
University  of  Virginia,  and  I was  to  go  to  the  latter 
place. 

When  the  war  came  on  my  brother  George  at 
once  volunteered  as  a private  in  the  Eleventh  Vir- 
ginia Infantry,  C.  S.  A.  He  was  killed  at  the  second 
battle  of  Manassas.  Like  all  other  youths,  I volun- 
teered at  once,  and  enlisted  as  a private  in  the  Hinth 
Virginia  Cavalry,  C.  S.  A.  I was  wounded  and 
taken  prisoner  in  March,  1864,  and  remained  in 
prison  until  June  15,  1865. 

The  region  of  country  where  my  mother’s  farm 
was  located  was  occupied  during  almost  all  the  war 
by  the  Union  armies.  In  1864  the  Federal  soldiers 
took  my  helpless  brother  John  and  my  little  brother 
Taylor,  then  twelve  years  of  age,  as  prisoners  to 
Alexandria.  They  were  subject  to  cruel  exposure 
and  very  harsh  treatment.  My  brother  John  was 


10 


History  of  the 


brought  home  an  idiot,  and  the  cruel  treatment 
killed  Taylor,  who  died  in  prisond 

My  third  sister  was  attacked  with  diptheria  in  the 


1 Though  not  strictly  germane,  the  following  incident,  rela- 
tive to  my  little  brother  Taylor’s  death,  may  be  thought  worth 
mentioning: 

I was  taken  prisoner  in  a skirmish  on  the  20th  March,  1864. 
On  the  21st  I was  taken  to  the  headquarters  of  General 
Meade,  then  near  Culpeper  Courthouse,  Va.,  where  I was  put 
into  what  was  called  the  “Bull  Pen.’’  This  was  an  open 
stockade  made  of  split  pines  twenty  feet  long  set  upright,  with 
the  lower  ends  let  into  the  ground.  It  was  circular,  and  per- 
haps forty  feet  in  diameter.  It  was  entirely  uncovered — open 
at  the  top.  It  was  a temporary  place  of  imprisonment  for 
prisoners  of  war  like  myself,  deserters  from  the  Federal  army, 
deserters  from  the  Confederate  army,  and  civilians  who  might 
have  been  arrested.  On  entering  the  pen  I found  my  little 
brother  Taylor.  He  had  been  torn,  without  any  cause  what- 
ever that  I have  ever  heard  of,  from  my  mother’s  arms  and 
brought  here,  some  twenty-five  miles  distant  from  her  home. 
He  had  nothing  to  protect  him  from  the  weather,  which  was 
bitter,  but  an  old  shawl  which  my  mother  had  thrown  around 
him  when  they  carried  him  off.  Snow  fell  on  us  that  night  a 
foot  deep.  I had  nothing  but  my  overcoat  for  protection,  and 
there  Avas  no  fire.  I wrapped  the  child  up  in  his  shawl  and 
my  overcoat,  and  held  him  in  my  arms  all  night.  We  both 
almost  froze.  Ne.xt  day  I was  taken  to  Washington  and  put 
into  the  old  Capitol  prison.  I never  saAv  Taylor  again.  The 
exposure  was  too  much  for  the  child.  His  throat  was  natu- 
rally weak,  and  had  been  operated  upon.  New  inflammation 
resulted,  and  he  died  in  the  common  jail  at  Alexandria  with- 
out a face  near  him  that  he  had  ever  seen  before. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


11 


winter  of  1863-’64.  She  could  get  no  medical  atten- 
tion and  died.  I returned  home  from  prison  in 
June,  1865.  I found  there  all  the  family  then  left, 
to  wit:  my  grandmother,  my  aunt,  my  oldest  sister 
and  her  husband  and  three  children,  my  second 
sister  and  my  brother  John.  They  had  no  servant, 
and  my  mother  and  sisters  cooked  and  washed, 
although  they  had  all  been  raised  in  luxury.  There 
was  not  a fence  on  the  farm;  there  was  one  milch 
cow,  one  broken-down  horse,  left  as  worthless  by 
a^calvarylsoldier,  a yoke  of  oxen,  and  no  other  stock 
of  any  kind.  The  family  had  no  money,  and  not 
two  weeks’  suppl}'  of  any  article  of  food,  with  no 
growing  crops.  My  sister’s  husband  had  cultivated 
a garden  with  his  own  hands,  which  supplied  a suf- 
ficienc}'  of  vegetables;  otherwise  there  w'as  abso- 
lutely nothing  there  from  which  to  hope  for  a sup- 
port, except  the  bare  land. 

I have  stated  the  condition  of  our  family  with 
truth  and  exactness.  If  any  one  doubts  my  state- 
ment, let  him  ask  the  Governor  of  the  State,  or  any 
public  officer  in  Fauquier  county,  whether  I am 
worthy  of  belief.  Better  still,  let  him  write  to  any  of 
the  public  officers  in  Fauquier  county,  Warrenton, 


12 


History  of  the 


Va.,  for  a statement  of  facts  relative  to  the  condition 
of  Mrs.  Anna  K.  Royall’s  family  at  the  beginning, 
daring,  and  at  the  end  of  the  war. 

Now  the  condition  of  my  own  family  was  in  great 
measure  the  condition  of  the  great  body  of  the  people 
of  Virginia,  when  the  war  ended.  The  people  were 
as  poor  as  possible,  and  what  made  their  poverty  all 
the  harder  to  bear,  was  the  fact  that  they  had  not 
been  raised  to  labor,  and  it  is  a most  difficult  thing 
for  a man  reared  in  luxury  to  become  a day  laborer 
in  the  hot  sun,  all  at  once  and  without  preparation. 

Payment  of  interest  upon  the  public  debt  had  to 
come  from  taxation,  to  be  voluntarily  imposed  upon 
themselves  by  the  people  of  the  State,  and  there  was 
very  little  in  the  State  from  which  taxes  could  be  raised 
— practically  no  money.  A public  debt  rests  upon 
bare  promises  only.  A State  is  exempt  from  suit 
and  cannot  be  coerced  by  the  law.  Whether,  there- 
fore she  will  pay  a debt,  or  whether  she  will  not, 
rests  entirely  with  her  Legislature,  which  of  course 
represents  the  opinions  of  the  body  of  the  voters. 

What,  at  the  end  of  the  war,  was  Virginia’s  course 
respecting  her  public  debt  ? The  money  had  been 
borrowed  upon  her  credit,  when  her  citizens  were 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


IS 


rich.  Their  slaves  had  been  set  free  by  the  vis 
major.  It  was  upon  the  credit  given  by  their  labor 
that  the  money  had  been  borrowed.  The  temptation 
was  very  strong  to  say  to  the  creditor — as  was  sug- 
gested to  her  : “As  the  United  States  Government 
forcibly  deprived  me  of  my  basis  of  credit,  you 
must  look  to  it  for  payment.”  To  the  honor  of  her 
citizens,  they  in  fact  said  no  such  thing. 

While  the  money  was  being  borrowed,  Virginia 
consisted  of  the  present  State  and  of  what  now 
makes  W est  Virginia.  During  the  war,  that  part  of 
the  State  now  forming  the  State  of  West  Virginia 
was  detached  from  her  by  Act  of  Congress,  without 
her  consent,  and  erected  into  the  State  of  West  Vir- 
ginia. This  was  about  one-third  of  the  territory, 
and  one-third  of  the  population.  Public  opinion  in 
Virginia  at  once  settled  down  to  the  conclusion  that 
as  West  Virginia  had  taken  part  in  borrowing  the 
money,  she  should  also  take  part  in  repaying  it,  and 
that  as  her  territory  and  population  constituted 
about  one-third  of  the  old  State,  it  was  but  fair  that 
she  should  pay  one-third  of  the  debt.  When  the 
war  ended  there  existed  at  Alexandria  the  skeleton 
of  a government  of  Virginia,  which  had  been  dodg- 


14 


History  of  the 


ing  about  from  one  point  to  auothei’  under  the  name 
of  the  “loyal  government”  of  Virginia.  It  was  no 
real  government,  and  had  none  of  the  elements 
which  constitute  a real  government;  nevertheless  it 
was  better  than  no  government  at  all,  and  shadow 
as  it  was,  it  was  recognized  as  the  government  of  Vir- 
ginia by  the  Federal  authorities  at  Washington. 
In  1865  this  government  directed  the  people  to 
elect  a Legislature,  which  assembled  in  Richmond 
in  December,  1865.  Up  to  this  time  the  right  of 
voting  was  confined  to  the  white  people  alone 
and  this  Legislature  was  elected  by  white  voters 
only.  It  was  composed  of  the  best  citizens  Vir- 
ginia had.  Each  county  and  town  sent  its  most 
honored  and  trusted  son.  It  was  truly  repre- 
sentative of  the  old  State  and  people,  and  of  her 
highest  and  noblest  sympathies  and  aspirations. 
When  these  gentlemen  met,  they  found  themselves 
confronted  with  a situation  calculated  to  appall  the 
boldest  and  most  hopeful.  The  labor  system  was 
destroyed,  with  no  material  at  hand  out  of  which  a 
new  system  could  be  created.  The  financial  system 
under  which  the  people  lived  was  stricken  down, 
and  there  was  absolutely  no  money.  The  live-stock. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


15 


from  which  the  value  of  farming  lands  came,  had 
been  consumed  or  taken  away  by  the  armies.  There 
were  no  manufactories,  or  next  to  none.  For  this 
body  to  provide  for  the  absolutely  necessary  charges 
of  government,  was  no  easy  matter.  If  it  had 
openly  declared  that  the  State  would  not  recognize 
the  public  debt,  many  would  have  justified  its  course. 
If  it  had  simply  ignored  the  subject  altogether,  still 
larger  numbers  would  have  applauded  its  course.  To 
its  eternal  honor,  its  members  rose  to  the  demands 
of  what  would  have  been  expected  from  Virginia 
in  her  most  prosperous  days,  and  without  a moment’s 
hesitation  it  marched  up  to  its  duty,  as  her  sons  had 
marched  up  to  Cemetery  Hill. 

On  the  21st  of  December,  1865,  the  House  of 
Delegates  resolved  “that  the  Committee  on  Finance 
enquire  into  the  expediency  of  funding  the  interest 
debt  of  the  State,  and  report  by  bill  or  otherwise.” 

On  the  20th  of  February,  1866,  the  committee 
reported  “a  bill  to  provide  for  funding  the  interest 
on  the  public  debt,”  which  bill  passed  the  House 
unanimously  on  March  2d.^ 


House  Journal  1865-’66,  p.  448. 


16 


History  of  the 


On  the  same  day  the  bill  passed  the  Senate, 
unaniraousl}^  under  a suspension  of  the  rules.^ 

This  Act^  provides  that  the  holders  of  any  of  the 
State  bonds  issued  prior  to  April  17,  1861  (the  day 
Virginia  seceded),  may  invest  the  interest  due  on 
said  bonds  in  bonds  of  the  State  bearing  same  rate  of 
interest  as  the  principal  of  the  bond  bears.  In  due 
time  the  body  passed  an  Act  providing  for  paying 
interest.®  Its  preamble  provides  : 

“ Whereas,  from  the  immense  loss  of  property 
sustained  by  this  State  in  the  late  war,  it  is  found 
impossible  under  present  circumstances  to  pay  full 
interest  on  the  public  debt,  and  whereas  it  is  the 
desire  and  purpose  of  the  Gleneral  Assembly  to  make 
provision  for  paying  the  same  as  fully  as  the  re- 
sources of  the  State  will  warrant,”  therefore,  it  was 
enacted : “ that  two  per  cent,  interest  he  paid  on 
January  1st  and  July  1st,  1867,  on  the  principal  of 
the  debt  * * * that  being  the  interest  which 

this  State  feels  obliged  to  pay,  until  there  is  a settle- 
ment of  accounts  between  this  State  and  West  Vir- 

® Senate  Journal  1865-’66,  p.  312. 

^ Acts  1865-’66,  ch.  9,  p.  79. 

® Acts  1866-’67,  ch.  35. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


17 


£(inia.”  Four  per  cent,  is  two-thirds  of  six  per  cent, 
the  interest  which  the  bonds  bore.  This  Act,  there- 
fore, expressed  the  settled  convictions  of  the  people, 
that  \nr^inia  ought  equitably  to  pay  two-thirds  of 
the  debt,  and  West  Virginia  ought  to  pay  one-third 
of  it. 

To  make  the  matter  still  more  emphatic,  aud  to 
proclaim  to  all  men  that  though  Virginia  was  con- 
quered, stripped  of  all  her  property  and  trodden 
down  in  the  dirt,  yet  that  her  people  still  intended 
to  stand  up  to  every  obligation  that  affected  her 
honor,  this  Legislature,  without  a division,  qiassed 
the  following  joint  resolntion  : 

“Whereas,  the  public  credit  of  the  State  of  Virginia 
and  the  credit  of  our  citizens  has  been  injured  and  is 
now  being  injured  by  the  apprehensions  that  this  Gen- 
eral Assembly  will  repudiate  the  debt  of  the  State  and 
authorize  the  repudiation  of  the  debts  of  her  citizens; 
and  whereas  we  deem  it  important  to  remove  this  appre- 
hension from  the  minds  of  all  persons,  and  so  to  remove 
it  at  once;  and  whereas  if  the  disposition  existed  on  the 
part  of  the  General  Assembly  to  pass  any  repudiating 
act,  the  Constitutions  of  both  the  State  and  Federal 
Governments  positively  prohibit  the  passage  of  any  such 


18 


History  of  the 


law,  and  in  order  to  prevent  any  further  injury  to  our 
credit;  therefore — 

“ 1 . Resolved,  That  this  General  Assembly  will  pass  no 
such  acts  of  repudiation. 

“2.  That  such  legislation  would  be  no  less  destructive 
of  our  future  prosperity  than  of  our  credit,  our  integritj", 
and  our  honor.”® 

Such  is  the  record  on  this  subject  of  the  last  body 
that  has  assembled  in  Virginia  to  represent  the 
State  and  her  society  as  they  existed  aforetime.  If 
her  voters  had  remained  what  they  were  when  this 
Legislature  was  chosen,  the  world  would  never  have 
heard  of  the  Virginia  debt,  and  Virginia’s  creditors 
would  have  been  paid  what  was  their  just  due. 


«Acts  1866-’67,  ch.  33,  p.  499. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


19 


CHAPTER  II. 

IR  1867  Congress  passed  the  Acts  tor  reconstruct- 
ing the  governments  of  Southern  States.  Under 
these,  all  negro  males  over  the  age  of  twenty-one 
became  entitled  to  vote.  The  first  Legislature  that 
sat  in  Virginia  after  that  of  1865-’66  was  elected 
under  these  reconstruction  laws  by  the  votes  of  both 
white  and  colored  voters.  Although  this  Legislature 
was  elected  by  the  votes  of  both  white  and  colored 
voters,  and  although  it  contained  negro  representa- 
tives and  members  who  were  elected  as  the  rep- 
resentatives of  negro  constituencies,  those  who 
essentially  represented  white  constituencies  were 
in  the  majority  in  both  houses.  It  commenced  its 
sessions  in  December,  1870.  In  March,  1871,  when 
the  debt  with  its  overdue  interest  amounted  to  $47,- 
000,000,^  it  passed  an  Act  providing  for  refunding 
the  public  debt.  This  Act  is  chapter  282  of  the 
Acts  of  1871-T2.  It  is  constructed  upon  the  set- 


Acts  1871-’72,  p.  515. 


20 


History  of  the 


tied  convictions  of  the  people  that  West  Virginia 
ought  equitably  to  pay  one-third  of  the  debt.  It 
provided  that  the  holder  of  one  of  the  State’s  old 
bonds  might  deliver  it  to  the  State’s  authorities,  who 
were  directed  to  return  to  the  holder  a new  bond  of 
the  State  for  two-thirds  the  amount  of  the  principal 
and  overdue  interest  of  the  old  bond,  the  whole 
bearing  the  same  rate  of  interest  that  the  old  bond 
bore,  with  a certificate  stating  that  paj'ment  of  the 
other  third  would  be  provided  for  in  accordance 
with  such  settlement  as  should  be  thereafter  had 
between  the  States  of  Virginia  and  West  Virginia. 

As  an  inducement  to  the  creditor  to  fund,  and 
thus  practically  to  release  Virginia  from  one-third 
of  the  debt,  the  Act  provided  that  the  bonds  should 
run  thirty-four  years,  bearing  six  per  cent,  interest 
per  annum,  the  interest  payable  the  first  days  of 
January  and  July  in  each  year;  and  it  provided  that 
the  interest  promises  should  be  in  the  form  of  cou- 
pons, which  should  be  receivable  in  payment  of  all 
taxes,  debts,  and  demands  due  to  the  State.  In  the 
case  of  Woodruff  vs.  Trapnall,  10  How.  S.  C.  E., 
1890,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  had 
decided  in  1850  that  such  a contract  made  by  a State 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


21 


was  within  the  protection  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  bound  it  irrevocably,  and  that  she 
must  always  recognize  it  by  receiving  such  instru- 
ments in  payment  of  taxes  levied  by  her;  and  in 
Furman  vs.  ISTicoll,  8 Wal.  S.  C.  R.  44,  it  had  again 
decided  the  same  thing  in  1869. 

As  far  as  human  foresight  could  go,  it  seemed 
certain,  therefore,  that  whoever  surrendered  his  old 
bond  and  received  the  new  one  provided  for  by  this 
Act,  was  made  secure  of  payment  of  his  annual 
interest  so  long  as  the  State  levied  taxes,  and  how- 
ever poor  she  might  be,  it  was  evident  she  would  be 
compelled  to  raise  taxes  for  support  of  her  govern- 
ment as  long  as  she  was  a State.  Those,  therefore, 
who  funded  under  this  Act  did  so  with  a belief 
entirely  justified  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  protected  them  against  any  repudiation  or 
evasion  of  their  stipulated  right,  even  if  the  State  of 
Virginia  should  ever  find  itself  disposed  to  attempt 
either.  The  creditors  promptly  accepted  the  offer 
which  the  Act  contained.  Funding  under  it  com- 
menced at  once  and  proceeded  very  rapidly.  By 
March,  1872,  holders  of  bonds,  the  principal  and 
overdue  interest  of  which  amounted  to  $30, 000, 000, 


22 


History  of  the 


liacl  surrendered  them,  and  received  in  their  stead 
new  bonds  for  $20,000,000,  bearing  six  per  cent, 
interest,  with  tax  receivable  coupons  attached. 

When  this  funding  Act  was  passed,  the  revenues 
being  raised  by  the  State  were  insufficient  to  pay  all 
the  other  appropriations  provided  for  by  her  laws, 
and  to  pay  also  six  per  cent,  interest  upon  the  bonds 
provided  for  by  the  new  Act.  Consequently,  she  at 
once  defaulted  in  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  new 
bonds.  In  March,  1872,  her  Legislature  passed  an 
Act  prohibiting  her  officers  from  issuing  any  more 
bonds  bearing  tax  receivable  coupons.  This  Act 
also  forbade  the  collectors  of  taxes  to  receive  the 
coupons  already  issued  in  payment  of  taxes.-  The 
creditors  at  once  attacked  this  Act,  so  far  as  it  for- 
bade receipt  of  their  coupons  for  taxes,  as  one  that 
impaired  the  obligation  of  their  contract,  and,  there- 
fore, as  being  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  Virginia’s  own  Court  of  Appeals 
held  that  it  was  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  and  void.® 


^Ycts  1871-72,  p.  141. 

■^Antoni  vs.  Wright,  22  Gratt.,  p.  833. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


23 


From  this  time  forward,  for  several  years,  the 
State’s  collectors  received  the  coupons  in  payment 
of  taxes,  and  almost  all  of  each  annual  crop  was 
regularly  redeemed  thus.  They  were  redeemed, 
however,  at  the  expense  of  other  demands  upon  the 
State,  as  the  revenue  was  not  sufficient  for  all,  and 
the  deficiency  fell  principally  upon  the  provision  for 
public  free  schools.  And  all  of  this  proceeded 
ditectly  from  the  new  order  of  things  which  the 
introduction  of  the  negro  as  a voter  produced. 
It  would  be  a simple  matter  to  show  that  if  it  were 
worth  the  space.  As  the  result  of  this  state  of 
things,  one  of  the  most  troublesome  political  agita- 
tors that  has  ever  infested  the  domestic  affairs  of 
any  people  came  upon  the  stage.  This  was  William 
Mahone,  lately  a major-general  in  the  Confederate 
States  army,  and  afterwards,  for  six  years,  a Senator 
in  the  United  States  Senate,  At  the  ending  of  the 
war  his  position  as  a Confederate  States  soldier  gave 
him  a very  considerable  influence  with  the  public 
^men  in  Virginia.  The  State  was  a very  large  holder 
of  stock  in  three  railway  corporations,  which,  though 
separate  corporations,  made  a continuous  line  all 
across  the  State,  from  Norfolk  on  the  sea-coast  to 


24 


History  of  the 


Bristol  on  the  Tennessee  line.  This  interest  was 
acquired  with  the  money  already  spoken  of  as  bor- 
rowed. By  manipulations  which  have  since  been 
very  much  discussed  and  very  much  condemned, 
Mahone  prevailed  on  the  Legislature  to  pass  an  act 
consolidating  these  three  corporations  into  one,  and 
through  the  State’s  vote  he  was  made  president  of 
the  new  corporation  at  a salary  of  $25,000  per  an- 
num. The  new  railroad  venture  was  not  a success, 
and  in  due  time  it  found  itself  in  hopeless  insol- 
vency. Mahone  was  deposed,  and  the  railway  went 
into  the  hands  of  a receiver.  Finding  himself  with- 
out a job,  he  turned  to  politics  as  his  field  and  took 
up  the  public  debt  as  his  theme.  He  published  a 
manifesto  showing  how  the  coupons  were  consuming 
the  revenues,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  teachers  of  the 
free  schools,  and  he  advocated  a theory  of  politics 
which  should  compel  the  creditors  to  give  up  their 
coupons  and  take  new  State  bonds  bearing  very 
much  less  interest.  He  called  his  proposition  a 
movement  for  the  “readjustment”  of  the  public 
debt.  It  was  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  begin- 
ning of  a movement  for  repudiation. 

Up  to  this  time  Mahone  had  been  a leader  in  the 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


25 


Democratic  party,  and  for  a number  of  years  he  had 
been  chairman  of  the  Democratic  Congressional 
Committee  for  the  Fourth  Congressional  District, 
and  the  charge  has  been  very  industriously  made 
and  circulated  ever  since  that  during  his  administra- 
tion of  the  affairs  of  that  district  the  negroes  were 
regularly  cheated  out  of  their  votes  by  the  use  of 
tissue  ballots  approved  of  by  him.  The  record  of 
the  contest  before  the  hfational  House  of  Represent- 
atives, in  the  case  of  Platt  vs.  Goode,  Forty-fourth 
Congress,  will  throw  a flood  of  light  upon  this 
charge, 

Mahone’s  flrst  venture  in  politics  for  high  ofiice 
was  an  efiort  to  secure  the  Democratic  nomination 
for  Governor  in  the  year  1876.  He  industriously 
drummed  up  all  the  advocates  of  “readjustment”  in 
the  State,  but  when  the  convention  met  it  refused 
to  nominate  him,  and,  instead,  nominated  a one- 
armed  Confederate  colonel  named  Holliday,  who 
was  in  favor  of  paying  the  State’s  debt  as  it  stood. 

Politics  were  practically  ended  in  Virginia  at  that 
time.  The  Republican  party,  which  consisted  of  all 
the  negroes  and  a few  whites,  had  been  so  often  de- 
feated that  it  had  virtually  gone  out  of  existence. 


26 


History  of  the 


Ft  placed  no  candidate  in  the  field  in  this  election, 
and  Holliday  was  made  Governor  nem  con. 

A new  Legislature  was  elected  at  the  same  time 
that  Holliday  was  elected  Governor.  How,  though 
no  one  was  put  up  to  contest  the  Governorship,  the 
seed  that  Mahone  had  sown  had  begun  to  hear  fruit, 
and  a formidable  body  of  members  of  the  new 
Legislature  favorable  to  a “readjustment”  of  the 
public  debt  according  to  his  ideas  appeared  when 
that  body  met,  and  by  the  fall  of  1879,  when  a new 
Legislature  was  to  be  elected,  this  party  had  grown 
to  such  proportions  as  to  make  a serious  division 
amongst  the  white  people  of  the  State. 

The  time  for  the  formation  of  a dema2:oorue’8 
party  was  most  propitious,  and  Mahone  recognized 
it,  and  was  of  all  men  the  man  to  form  and  lead  it. 
He  had  tireless  energy  and  absolute  indifference  to 
the  opinion  of  the  good.  Though  his  services  and 
qualifications  as  a soldier  have  been  denied  by  those 
who  ought  to  know,  his  position  in  the  Confederate 
army  and  his  reputed  services  had  given  him  a 
strong  imprimatur  with  Confederate  soldiers.  He 
was  astute  and  cunning,  and,  above  all,  his  public 
employments  had  made  him  a wide  personal  ac- 
quaintance in  all  parts  of  the  State. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


27 


The  opportunity  could  not  have  been  more  favora- 
ble. In  the  first  place  the  solid  negro  vote,  more 
than  one-third  of  the  entire  votes,  was  ready  to 
follow  him  in  a body.  The  negro’s  propensity  as  a 
voter  is  very  singular.  He  always  waits  to  find  out 
how  the  great  body  of  the  white  people  will  vote, 
and  he  always  then  votes  in  a solid  body  the  oppo- 
site way.  This  presumably  proceeds  from  the  old 
relation  of  slavery.  He  is  always  apprehensive  that 
the  white  man  will  re-enslave  him,  and  he  thinks 
the  best  plan  for  making  that  impossible  is  to  antago- 
nize the  white  man  on  all  public  issues.  Besides, 
the  debt  was  contracted  while  he  was  a slave,  and  if 
he  reflected  at  all,  he  would  naturally  feel  little 
interest  in  the  holders  of  it.  Mahone  had  then  this 
immense  block  of  voters  ready  to  his  hand  to  count 
on  as  supporters  in  a movement  to  “readjust”  or 
repudiate  the  public  debt.  There  was  also  a very 
considerable  contingent  to  be  drawn  from  the  ranks 
of  the  white  people.  There  were  first  the  worthless, 
the  shiftless,  and  the  impecunious  who  are  always 
ready  to  go  into  any  movement  that  promises  change. 
Virginia  was  no  more  exempt  from  these  than  any 
other  political  community  is. 


28 


History  of  the 


Second.  There  was  the  very  numerous  body  of 
respectable  men  who  thought  that  as  the  United 
States  Government  had  forcibly  deprived  them  of 
their  slaves,  on  whose  credit  the  money  was  bor- 
rowed, the  United  States  Government  ought  to  pay 
the  debt.  These  believed  that  Virginia  was  under 
no  moral  obligation  to  pay  it. 

Third.  There  were  the  old  broken-down  Virgin- 
ians of  the  better  classes  who  simply  could  not  per- 
form field  labor  in  the  hot  snn,  because  they  had  not 
been  reared  to  it,  and  they  could  not  commence  in 
advanced  years.  Of  these  some  preferred  repudia- 
tion, rather  than  to  labor  tor  the  advantage  of  the 
bondholder.  There  were  not  many  of  these. 

Fourth.  There  was  the  very  considerable  element 
that  he  could  induce  to  go  with  him  in  any  move- 
ment from  his  old  influence  as  a soldier  and  from 
the  influence  that  he  had  acquired  in  the  public 
stations  that  he  had  held. 

Fifth.  The  teachers  of  the  public  schools  per- 
meated every  neighborhood.  The  tax-paying  cou- 
pons had  diminished  their  salaries.  Many  of  them 
were  evangelists  to  preach  opposition  to  the  coupon 
and  the  creditor  in  ever}’  neighborhood,  and  each 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


29 


took  for  bis  text  whatever  theme  could  be  pressed 
with  best  effect  in  any  particular  neighborhood. 

Mahone  resolved  upon  his  part.  He  resolved  to 
become  a leader  of  a demagogue’s  party  to  make 
war  upon  the  public  debt.  But  how  was  this  to  be 
done  ? To  repudiate  that  part  of  the  debt  which 
was  not  in  the  form  of  tax  receivable  coupons  was  a 
very  simple  matter  if  the  majority  of  voters  deter- 
mined to  do  it.  But  Virginia’s  own  highest  court 
had  decided  that  a law  forbidding  the  collectors  of 
taxes  to  receive  the  coupons  was  repugnant  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  void.  It  was, 
therefore,  settled  to  be  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
laud  that  the  Legislature  of  the  State  was  powerless 
to  enact  statutes  injurious  to  the  rights  of  these  cou- 
pons, and  so  long  as  they  annually  forced  themselves 
into  the  treasury  the  revenues  were  intercepted,  and 
readjustment,  or  more  properly  repudiation,  was  no 
more  than  an  empty  paper  declaration. 

How  was  something  substantial  to  be  accomplished 
that  would  cut  off"  the  coupons  ? The  situation  was 
a desperate  one,  and  desperate  measures  were  re- 
solved upon.  It  was  argued  that  if  a political  party 
should  take  possession  of  the  State  in  all  its  depart- 


30 


History  of  the 


merits — legislative,  judicial,  and  executive — and  fill 
every  oflice  in  the  State  with  a person  determined 
to  destroy  the  coupon  as  a tax-paying  instrument, 
its  value  as  such  would  disappear  even  though  it  had 
behind  it  the  guarantee  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  Mahone  and  his  associates  therefore 
resolved  to  form  a political  party  having  this  object 
in  view  which  they  proclaimed  to  the  world  to  be  a 
party  for  “ forcible  readjustment.”  The  party  was 
accordingly  organized  through  representatives  from 
every  part  of  the  State  that  assembled  at  Mozart 
Hall  in  the  city  of  Richmond  in  the  spring  of  1879. 
A platform  was  adopted ; an  address  to  the  people 
was  put  forth ; an  organization  that  permeated  every 
neighborhood  in  the  State  was  effected,  and  the 
party  marched  out  to  do  battle  with  the  great  body  of 
Avhite  people  in  the  election  of  a Legislature  to  be 
chosen  in  ITovember,  1879.^ 

^See  proceedings  of  Mozart  Hall  Convention  in  Richmond 
Whig,  February  26th  and  27th,  1879  ; also  Richmond  Dispatch 
of  same  dates;  and  see  Richmond  Whig  passim  from  that 
time  forward. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


31 


CHAPTER  III. 

IT  has  already  been  shown  that  a Legislature  and 
Governor  were  elected  in  the  fall  of  1877.  The 
Governor,  Holliday,  was  a debt-payer.  The 
Legislature  contained  a very  strong  infusion  of  con- 
verts to  Mahone’s  doctrine  of  “ readjustment.” 
The  Legislature’s  life  is  two  years.  The  whole  of 
these  two  years  was  consumed  in  a contest  between 
the  Governor  and  the  Legislature  over  “ forcible  re- 
adjustment.” The  contest  ended  in  March,  1879, 
by  the  enactment  of  a statute  approved  by  the  Gov- 
ernor, which  ofiered  the  creditor  a new  basis  of 
funding.  This  Act  ofiered  him  a new  bond  bearing 
tax  receivable  coupons  for  interest,  the  bonds  to  bear 
three  per  cent,  interest  for  ten  years,  four  per 
cent,  for  twenty  years,  and  five  per  cent,  for  ten 
years.  A new  Legislature  was  to  be  elected  in  the 
coming  November.  The  Eeadjuster  party  mar- 
shalled its  forces  to  elect  a Legislature  hostile  to 
this  Act.  The  great  body  of  the  white  people  of 


S2 


History  of  the 


the  State  called  themselves  the  Democratic  party, 
and  this  party  adopted  this  last  Act,  and  the  main- 
tenance of  the  public  credit  for  its  platform,  and 
each  made  preparations  to  fight  out  the  contest  upon 
this  issued 

The  white  people  put  forth  their  very  best  efforts. 
Their  men  of  means  gave  their  money  to  the  cause 
with  the  utmost  liberality.  Every  man  connected 
in  any  sort  of  way  with  public  concerns  took  the 
stump.  Leading  statesmen  gave  up  their  whole 
time  to  the  cause,  and  travelled  from  neighborhood 
to  neighborhood  making  elaborate  orations  to  small 
cross-roads  meetings.  ISTo  people  were  ever  more 
thoroughly  enlisted  in  any  cause,  and  they  put  for- 
ward all  their  conservative  forces.  It  was  a fore- 
gone conclusion,  however,  that  they  would  fail. 
Mahone  had  his  negro  contingent  solid,  and  beyond 
all  danger  from  argument.  Argument  produces  no 
more  effect  upon  a negro  mob  than  it  produces 
upon  a grove  of  trees.  The  needy  and  impecunious 
whites  that  were  with  him  were  not  of  the  sort  who 
are  affected  by  argument  any  more  than  the  negroes. 

’See  address  of  State  Central  Committee  to  Democratic 
voters  in  Richmond  State  for  August  8,  1879. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


38 


In  short,  the  election  resulted,  as  all  wise  men  appre- 
hended it  would,  in  an  overwhelming  victory  for 
“forcible  readjustment”  of  the  public  debt.  Nor 
should  the  Federal  Government  be  excused  for  its 
share  in  the  result. 

The  negro  takes  his  cue  from  Washington  in  all 
elections.  Washington  city  is  to  him  the  Great 
Father.  Though  naturally,  on  principle  (if  such  a 
term  can  be  applied  in  such  a sense)  inclined  to  vote 
for  repudiation,  the  President,  by  taking  an  active 
part,  could  either  have  made  him  vote  for  public 
credit  or  could  at  least,  have  neutralized  him,  and 
have  kept  him  from  voting  at  all.  President  Hayes 
was  the  head  of  a party  that  proclaimed  public  credit 
as  its  watchword,  and  the  white  people  had  a right  to 
expect  that  he  would  exert  his  all-powerful  influence 
with  the  negro  to  keep  him  at  least  out  of  the  con- 
test. But  the  white  people,  unfortunatelj^  for  the 
result,  fought  under  a banner  labelled  “ Democratic- 
party,”  and  no  good  Republicans  could  do  anything 
that  might  possibly  contribute  to  the  success  of  a 
cause  conducted  under  that  flag. 

During  the  bitter  contest  that  ensued,  the  debt- 
payers  of  Virginia  received  many  consoling  mes- 


34 


History  of  the 


sages  from  Washington,  and  much  “ God  speed 
you  in  your  holy  work.”  They  were  somehow 
conscious  all  the  time,  however,  that  the  negro 
was  organizing  himself  against  them  with  all  the 
energy  of  aforetime,  when  the  string  used  to  be 
pulled  at  Washington,  and  he  jumped  in  Virginia; 
and  when  election  day  came  there  was  every  negro 
at  the  polls  to  vote  for  “ forcible  readjustment”  and 
there  he  was,  brought  to  the  polls  by  every  agency 
that  depended  upon  the  Government  of  the  United 
States.  The  base  treachery  and  deception  of  Mr. 
Hayes’  part  in  this  afiair  can  never  be  held  in  a 
light  of  scorn  and  detestation  that  is  too  strong, 
and  there  are  evidences  enough  of  it  to  convince 
the  most  skeptical.  I will  cite  one  : 

When  the  contest  was  at  its  hottest,  Mr.  Green 
J3.  Raum,  next  in  the  Treasury  Department  to  the 
Secretary,  made  public  proclamation  that,  as  an  im- 
portant part  of  Mr.  Hayes’  administration,  he  had 
notified  one  Van  Aucken,  an  officer  of  internal 
revenue  at  Petersburg,  Va.,  that  it  had  been  reported 
to  the  Government  that  he  favored  repudiation;  and 
that  he  had  notified  him  the  Government  would  not 
tolerate  any  such  views  in  one  of  its  officers,  and 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


35 


that  he  must  change  them  or  give  up  his  office.  He 
added  some  tine  homilies  upon  the  duty  of  paying 
debts.  This  action  of  the  administration  was  her- 
alded all  over  the  United  States,  and  was  in  half  the 
papers  published  in  the  Union.  Good  Eepublicans, 
wherever  they  read  it,  raised  their  eyes  to  Heaven 
and  thanked  God  that  their  President  was  not  as 
other  men,  and  that  the  rights  of  honest  creditors 
were  safe  in  his  hands. 

How,  it  so  happened  that  Van  Aucken  was  an 
original  debt-payer — had  been  so  all  along,  and  was 
at  that  very  time  one  of  the  tiercest  enemies  the 
candidates  of  repudiation  had  in  his  vicinity.  But 
one  Hathaway  was  a collector  of  customs  in  Horfolk, 
Va.,  drawing  regularly  a salary  of  |1,800  per  annum 
from  the  Federal  treasury.  This  man,  during  all 
this  time,  was  owner  and  editor  of  a daily  paper  at 
Horfolk  called  the  Day  Book,  which  was  the  rankest 
advocate  of  “forcible  readjustment”  in  the  State. 

How,  though  the  attention  of  the  Administration 
was  constantly  called  to  the  injury  which  he  was  do- 
ing the  debt-payers’  party  with  his  paper,  he  was 
never  once  molested,  and  was  allowed  to  draw  his 
salary  regularly  from  the  treasury  of  the  United 


36 


History  of  the 


States  to  supply  him  means  with  which  he  could 
help  along  the  cause  of  “forcible  readjustment.” 
The  credit  of  the  Republican  party  was  preserved, 
while  no  harm  was  done  to  the  party  opposed  to  that 
which  had  “Democracy  ” engraved  on  its  banners, 
although  that  party  was  straining  every  nerve  to 
maintain  all  that  those  who  have  a stake  in  life  or 
hope  for  the  future  desire  to  see  preserved. 

There  was  very  little  in  this  election,  or,  indeed, 
in  any  other  in  which  he  has  participated,  calculated 
to  give  encouragement  to  the  philanthropist  who 
hoped  that  arming  the  negro  with  the  elective  fran- 
chise would  put  a weapon  in  his  hands  by  the  aid  of 
which  he  would  be  able  to  better  and  advance  his 
condition  in  life.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  some 
of  those  who  gave  the  negro  the  right  to  vote  sin- 
cerel}^  believed  that  they  were  conferring  upon  him 
a right  which  he  would  exercise  wisely  and  judi- 
ciously for  his  own  and  the  common  good.  Ro  pro- 
jectors of  a movement  were  ever  more  deceived  in 
respect  to  the  results  that  their  movement  would 
accomplish.  In  the  thirty  years  of  our  experience 
the  negro  has  in  no  instance  used  his  right  wisely ; 
in  no  instance  has  his  use  of  it  resulted  in  good  to 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


37 


him  or  the  public,  and  all  the  disasters  that  have 
overtaken  him  or  us  in  that  time  have  resulted 
directly  from  his  possession  of  the  right  to  vote. 

I have  already  remarked  that  the  negro  never 
divides  when  an  election  comes  on.  This  may  be 
thought  singular,  but  it  is  not.  It  is  only  a mani- 
festation of  his  complete  unfitness  for  the  elective 
franchise,  which  ought  to  have  been  evident  to  every 
one  before  it  was  conferred  on  him. 

Secondly : He  always  votes  solidly  as  the  authori- 
ties of  the  Republican  party  direct  him  to  vote.  He 
never  reasons  about  it  or  asks  why,  but  he  votes 
without  a murmur  as  the  Republican  authorities  in- 
struct. Not  only  so,  but  he  will  not  tolerate  any 
secession  whatever  to  the  white  ranks.  There  is  no 
social  law  so  rigorous  and  cruel  as  that  which  the 
negro  applies  to  his  fellow  upon  this  point.  The 
negro  who  votes  with  the  white  people  on  any  point 
is  at  once  made  a social  outcast  by  his  race.  There 
are,  therefore,  none  but  social  outcasts  who  vote 
with  them.  This  is  certainly  true  in  Virginia,  how- 
ever it  may  be  in  the  States  further  south,  of  which 
I know  nothing.  The  blind  obedience  with  which 
they,  to  a man,  receive  and  obey  orders  from  the 


38 


History  of  the 


leaders  is  very  remarkable.  A striking  instance  of 
it  occurred  in  Richmond  some  years  back.  Two 
members  of  the  State  Senate  were  to  be  elected  for 
Richmond.  The  Democratic  party  nominated  Gen. 
Bradley  T.  Johnson  and  William  E.  Tanner,  Esq., 
for  the  places.  The  Republicans  made  no  nomina- 
tions. Before  the  day  of  election  Messrs.  Knight 
and  Starke  proclaimed  themselves  independent  can- 
didates, expecting  their  main  support  from  the 
negroes.  General  Johnson  made  a strong  effort  to 
secure  a part  of  the  negro  vote.  At  very  considera- 
ble expense  he  organized  several  “Johnson”  negro 
clubs.  The  election  took  place  on  a Monday.  Up 
to  the  Sunday  preceding  he  had  a considerable 
number  of  negroes  enrolled  in  his  clubs  pledged  to 
vote  for  him,  and  he  had  every  reason  to  expect  a 
considerable  negro  vote.  So  far  the  negroes  had 
taken  no  part  in  the  matter,  but  on  the  Sunday 
night  preceding  the  election  the  negro  preachers 
announced  from  all  their  pulpits  in  the  city  (and  the 
whole  negro  population  in  cities  goes  to  church  on 
Sunday  night)  that  the  negroes  were  expected  to 
vote  for  Knight  and  Starke.  Johnson  and  Tanner 
were  elected,  but  not  a single  negro  vote  was  east 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


39 


for  them.  This,  fortunately  for  this  discussion,  was 
proved  in  the  sequel.  Knight  and  Starke  contested 
Johnson  and  Tanner’s  right  to  their  seats.  The 
evidence  of  the  witnesses  was  all  taken  down  in 
written  depositions,  and  is  part  of  the  record  of  the 
contest  amongst  the  State  Senate’s  archives.  Any 
one  who  pleases  can  read  it  for  himself  amongst  the 
proceedings  of  the  session  of  1875-’76. 

At  one  voting  precinct,  Johnson  had  a prosperous 
club  of  some  eighty-five  members.  Every  negro  who 
voted  at  that  precinct  was  examined  as  a witness, 
and  every  one,  without  exception,  testified  that  he 
voted  for  Knight  and  Starke. 

I can  relate  another  striking  instance  within  my 
own  knowledge  of  the  tenacity  with  which  their 
race  bond  holds  them  together  and  forbids  them  to 
furnish  a^y  aid  whatever  to  the  white  man’s  side  of 
any  issue,  whatever  it  may  be. 

In  the  year  1880  I lived  in  bachelor’s  quarters  in 
Richmond  city.  I had  for  a body-servant  a well- 
known  negro  man  named  William  Isham,  whom  I 
had  known  well  and  trusted  for  a long  time  and  of 
whom  I was  personally  fond.  He  is  a very  prince 
in  his  race.  I had  taken  him  into  my  employment 


40 


History  of  the 


lit  his  ursfent  solicitation  when  he  was  well  nis^h 
starving.  He  had  recently  lost  his  position.  We 
lived  together  much  more  as  friends  than  as  master 
and  servant.  I was  a delegate  from  Virginia  to  the 
National  Democratic  Convention  at  Cincinnati  that 
nominated  General  Hancock,  and  I took  William 
with  me  to  give  him  a trip.  On  the  way  the  sleep- 
ing-car conductor  came  to  me  in  the  night  and 
asked  me  to  make  my  servant  surrender  his  sleeping- 
car  berth  with  which  I had  provided  him  to  the 
Hon.  Samuel  J.  Randall,  who,  he  said,  was  on  the 
train  and  could  get  no  berth.  I refused,  and  told 
William  if  there  was  any  attempt  to  take  it  from 
him  to  let  me  know,  and  I would  see  that  he  was 
protected.  I mention  this  only  to  show  how  close 
the  relations  were  between  us.  I was  at  the  time 
owner  and  editor  of  a daily  newspaper  called  the 
Commonwealth.  One  of  my  reporters  put  an  item 
into  my  columns  stating  that  the  negro  pastor  of  a 
very  large  negro  congregation  in  Richmond  had 
been  tried  by  his  deacons  upon  the  charge  of  undue 
intimacy  with  a female  member  of  his  congregation. 
The  negro  preacher  brought  an  action  against  me 
for  libel,  claiming  heavy  damages.  I had  of  course 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


41 


to  prepare  for  my  defence,  and  I made  every  effort 
to  find  out  what  the  facts  were.  I could  learn 
nothing.  jSTo  negro  would  tell  me  one  single  thing 
concerning  the  matter.  It  looked  as  though  I was 
to  be  victimized  on  a charge  that  I became  satisfied 
was  true. 

I finally  bethought  me  of  William.  I laid  all  the 
facts  before  him,  and  asked  him  to  get  me  the  name 
of  the  female.  I shall  never  forget  the  anguish 
which  his  countenance  expressed  when  I made  the  re- 
quest. He  told  me  he  could  tell  me  nothing  until  he 
had  consulted  with  his  father.  Next  day  he  told  me 
he  had  consulted  with  his  father,  and  had  to  decline 
to  give  me  any  information  whatever.  I reproached 
him  bitterly  with  his  ingratitude,  but,  though  it 
almost  broke  his  heart,  he  was  obdurate,  and  I 
never  got  one  word  from  him.  In  point  of  fact,  as 
I learned  afterwards,  William  knew  all  about  the 
matter.  He  was  one  of  the  deacons  of  the  church, 
and  he  had  taken  part  in  the  trial  of  the  minister, 
and  had  heard  all  the  evidence. 

Mahone’s  party  elected  a considerable  majority  in 
this  election  (fall  of  1879)  in  each  branch  of  the  Leg- 
islature, but  the  debt-paying  Governor  Holliday  had 


42 


History  of  the 


yet  two  years  of  his  time  to  serve.  Two  notable 
things  were  done  by  this  Legislature : 

First.  It  enacted  into  statutes  Mahone’s  plans  for 
torcible  readjustment,  explanation  of  which  is  de- 
ferred to  a subsequent  chapter.  These  were  vetoed 
by  the  Governor. 

Second.  Under  his  inspiration  and  direction  it 
introduced  the  “ spoils  system  ” in  the  distribution 
of  public  offices  from  which  Virginia  up  to  that  time 
had  been  exempt.  Always  theretofore  when  a public 
office  was  to  be  filled,  by  common  consent,  the  rule 
had  measurably  been  to  select  the  person  believed 
to  be  the  best  qualified  for  the  office.  Mahone 
changed  all  of  this.  His  party  caucus  took  charge 
of  all  matters  affecting  legislation  and  the  filling  of 
“offices.  The  State  was  parcelled  out  into  districts, 
and  some  prominent  man  in  each  district  was  given 
the  appointment  of  every  holder  of  office  in  that 
district.  There  was  a regular  committee  in  charge 
of  this  business,  called  the  Committee  on  Patronage, 
and  this  divided  out  the  offices  under  the  control  of 
the  Legislature  with  all  the  impartiality  of  the  leaders 
of  a gang  of  sneak  thieves. 

Of  all  the  injuries  Mahone  has  done  Virginia,  this 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


4a 


was  perhaps  the  saddest.  It  sticks  to  her  like  the 
hlight  of  corosion ; yet  it  was  the  corner-stone  of 
his  governmental  edifice.  Throughout  all  the  time 
that  he  held  any  connection  with  public  aflairs  in 
Virginia,  his  guiding  principle  was  to  attach  indi- 
viduals to  his  party  and  himself  by  bestowing  ofifice& 
upon  them  if  they  obeyed  literally  his  behests,  by 
denying  oflices  to  them  if  they  murmured  against 
his  commands.  His  party  soon  became  as  mottled 
as  Sir  John  Falstafl:’’s  company  of  Mouldy,  Shadow, 
Wart,  Feeble,  and  Bull-calf.  On  assembling  in  the 
fall  of  1879,  this  Legislature  elected  Mahone  United 
States  Senator. 


44 


History  of  the 


CHAPTER  IV. 

From  the  time  the  right  of  suffrage  was  conferred 
upon  the  negroes,  political  parties  in  Virginia, 
as  in  all  other  Southern  States,  had  meant  all 
the  negroes  and  a few  w'hite  men  in  one  party,  called 
the  Republican  party,  and  the  whole  bulk  of  the 
white  people  in  another  party,  calling  themselves 
the  Democratic  party.  From  the  time  Mahone  be- 
gan his  movement  for  repudiating  the  debt,  it  was 
plain  that  he  must  rely  upon  the  negro  vote  for  the 
substantial  strength  of  his  party,  and  it  was  equally 
plain  to  all  sensible  men  that  this  must  sooner  or 
later  land  him  in  the  bosom  of  the  Rational  Repub- 
lican party.  He  struggled  hard  against  the  inevita- 
ble, both  he  and  his  associates  indignantly  denying 
that  they  wei'e  Republicans,  or  that  they  had  any 
sympathy  whatever  with  that  party.  They  called 
themselves  “ Readjuster  Democrats.”  Their  reason 
tor  their  course]  was  this : Almost  to  a man,  the 
native  white  population  resented  the  idea  of  the  State 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


45 


being  turned  over  to  negro  rule,  which  it  was  be- 
lieved the  ascendancy  of  the  Kepublican  party 
meant.  If,  therefore,  Mahoue  and  his  associates  de- 
clared themselves  to  be  Eepublicans,  they  found 
they  would  lose  the  co-operation  of  the  white  people 
who  were  acting  with  them  to  bring  about  a repudi- 
ation of  the  public  debt.  They  therefore  endeavored 
to  “ run  with  the  hare  and  hold  with  the  hounds," 
and,  as  will  always  happen  in  such  cases,  they  met 
with  most  disastrous  failure. 

The  Presidential  election  between  Garfield  and 
Hancock  came  off  in  I^’ovember,  1880,  and  it  became 
necessary  for  Mahoue  to  take  a stand  as  between  the 
two.  He  impudently  put  forward  the  claim  that  his 
was  the  Simon-pure,  real  Democratic  party;  he  and 
his  associates  assembled  in  what  they  called  the 
Democratic  Convention  of  the  State,  and  they  put 
out  a full  Hancock  Democratic  electoral  ticket. 

Without  paying  the  slightest  attention  to  his 
bogus  claims,  the  real  Democratic  party  of  the  State 
put  out  its  Hancock  and  English  electoral  ticket,  and 
the  Republicans  got  out  their  regular  Garfield  elec- 
toral ticket.  Mahone’s  true  purpose  was  perfectly 
plain  and  apparent  to  every  one.  He  knew  that  if 


46 


History  of  the 


he  declared  himself  a Republican  and  his  party  a 
section  of  the  Republican  party  he  would  drive  oif 
a large  part  of  the  white  people  who  were  with  him 
in  State  aftairs  and  who  were  earnestly  in  favor  of 
repudiating  the  public  debt,  and  another  decisive 
lio-bt  on  that  issue  was  to  come  on  in  the  fall  of 
1881.  He  hoped,  therefore,  by  this  course  to  render 
substantial  aid  to  Garfield,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
keep  his  white  voters  in  hand  for  the  next  State 
election. 

In  the  election  90,449  votes  were  cast  for  the  regu- 
lar Democratic  ticket,  31,521  for  Mahone’s  bogus 
Hancock  ticket,  and  84,020  for  the  Garfield  ticket. 

In  November,  1881,  a Governor  and  entirely  new 
Legislature  were  to  be  elected,  and  this  election  was 
to  decide  finally  whether  the  debt-payers  should 
control  the  State  or  whether  its  government  should 
be  turned  over  to  the  repudiators.  General  Garfield 
died  in  September,  1881,  and  General  Arthur  suc- 
ceeded him  in  the  Presidency.  The  New  York 
Times  of  November  20,  1881,  contains  an  interview 
with  Senator  Mahoue,  in  which  he  says  that  during 
the  life  of  General  Garfield  his  party  received  very 
little  aid  from  the  Federal  Government,  but  that  as 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


47 


soon  as  President  Arthur  took  the  reins  of  ofovern- 

O 

meut  matters  changed,  and  the  Readjusters  had  the 
full  benefit  of  all  the  assistance  that  the  Administra- 
tion could  give.  His  language  is  : “ "When  President 
Arthur  assumed  office  it  was  late  to  do  anything, 
but  the  acts  of  the  new  Administration,  although 
late,  were  efiective.  They  indicated  as  plainly  as 
could  be  the  desires  of  the  Administration,  and 
wherever  they  were  indicated  they  accomplished 
most  desirable  results.” 

To  estimate  the  value  of  this  statement  of  Senator 
Mahone  it  is  necessary  to  take  a brief  review  of  the 
facts  that  fixed  his  political  status  at  the  time.  Ma- 
hone was  born  in  Southampton  county,  Va.,  the  son 
of  a worthy  Irishman  who  kept  a store  at  a country 
cross-roads.  He  was  appointed  to  the  Virginia 
Military  Institute  as  a State  cadet,  and  received 
what  education  he  had  at  the  State’s  expense  there. 
All  his  associations  up  to  the  war  had  been  such  as 
to  make  him  a “ dyed-in-the-wool  ” Democrat  as 
“Democracy”  was  defined  when  he  was  elected  to 
the  United  States  Senate.  He  rose  to  high  com- 
mand in  the  Confederate  States  army,  as  has  been 
already  stated,  and  his  associations  there  all  con- 


48 


History  of  the 


tributed  to  iuteusify  what  made  “ Democracy  ” in 
the  South  in  1881.  Up  to  the  time  that  he  voted 
with  the  Republicans  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
in  the  spring  of  1881,  he  had  been  one  of  the  most 
intense  “ Democrats  ” of  the  “ Democrats  ” as  De- 
mocracy was  defined  in  Virginia  at  the  time. 

After  the  war  he  served  for  years  as  chairman  of 
the  Democratic  Congressional  Committee  for  the 
Petersburg  district,  and  the  Republicans  perpetually 
charged  that  thej^  were  regularly  cheated  out  of  each 
congressional  election  while  be  was  such  chairman 
by  his  use  of  tissue  ballots.  The  whole  body  of  the 
people  of  Virginia  believe  their  charge  to  be  founded 
on  facts. 

In  1877  he  was  a candidate  for  the  Democratic 
nomination  of  Governor  of  the  State,  and  he  was 
only  beaten  for  the  nomination  in  the  Democratic 
Convention  by  a very  small  majority.  The  Legisla- 
ture that  elected  him  a United  States  Senator  was 
overwhelmingly  a Democratic  body,  although  the 
Democrats  that  sat  in  it  were  divided  upon  questions 
relating  to  the  State  debt.  But  all  the  “Readjusters’" 
in  that  body  were  intensely  Democratic,  and  the 
whole  world  knows  that  they  would  have  voted  for 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


49 


no  one  to  be  United  States  Senator  who  declared 
beforehand  that  he  would  vote  in  the  United  States 
Senate,  on  national  questions,  with  the  Republicans. 
When  he  was  up  for  election  as  Senator  before  the 
Legislature  the  question  was  constantly  asked  in 
debate  whether  he  would  vote  with  the  Democrats 
in  the  Senate,  and  his  friends  repelled  the  insinua- 
tion that  he  would  vote  with  the  Republicans  there 
as  an  insult  to  him.  As  soon  as  he  took  his  seat  in 
the  Senate  the  memorable  debate  led  by  Senator 
Hill,  of  Georgia,  took  place,  in  which  Mahone  de- 
clared, on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  that  he  was  a bet- 
ter Democrat  than  Senator  Hill.  He  was  elected 
Senator  at  the  beginning  of  1880,  and  took  his  seat 
at  the  called  session  of  the  Senate  that  began  its 
sittings  March  4,  1881.  In  that  interim  he  kept  his 
mouth  tightly  closed,  and  no  man  could  say,  when 
the  Senate  assembled,  from  his  public  utterances, 
with  which  party  he  would  vote.  Senator  Hill,  in 
the  great  debate  referred  to,  “ smoked  him  out  ” and 
made  him  show  his  hand.  An  account  of  how  this 
came  about  is  worth  a place  here. 

Mr.  Garfield  was  to  be  inaugurated  on  the  4th  of 
March,  1881.  Mr.  Hayes,  the  retiring  President, 


50 


History  of  the 


called  the  Senate  to  meet  in  Executive  Session  as  is 
usual  on  that  day.  The  Senate  then  consisted  of 
seventy-six  members.  If  all  the  Republican  seats 
had  been  filled  there  would  have  been  thirty-seven 
avowed  Republican  Senators,  thirty-seven  avowed 
Democratic  Senators,  and  Senator  Davis  of  Illinois, 
an  independent,  but  elected  by  Democratic  votes,  and 
Senator  Mahone,  a nondescript,  elected  by  a Legisla- 
ture that  was  overwhelmingly  Democratic.  If,  there- 
fore, the  Senate  had  been  full  and  Senators  Davis 
and  Mahone  had  voted  with  the  Democrats,  the  Sen- 
ate would  have  stood  thirty-nine  Democrats  to  thirty- 
seven  Republicans.  If,  however.  Senator  Davis 
voted  with  the  Democrats  and  Senator  Mahone 
voted  with  the  Republicans,  the  Senate  would  have 
stood  thirty-eight  Republicans  to  thirty-eight  Demo- 
crats, with  the  Republican  Vice-President  Arthur  to 
cast  the  deciding  vote.  Mr.  Davis  announced  at  the 
beginning  of  the  session  that  being  elected  by  Demo- 
cratic votes,  he  felt  bound  to  vote  with  the  Demo- 
cratic Senators.  This,  of  course,  accentuated 
Mahone’s  position  very  acutely,  but  no  man  could 
say  how  he  would  vote. 

The  Republican  side  of  the  Senate  was  not  full  ; 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


51 


one  Senator  had  just  died,  and  Mr.  Garfield  had  put 
three  into  his  Cabinet,  but  the  Legislatures  of  the 
States  which  those  four  represented  were  all  in  ses- 
sion, and  it  was  well  known  that  four  Republican 
Senators  would  be  in  \Yashington  in  a very  few  days 
to  fill  the  vacant  seats.  The  contest  came  on  upon 
the  question  of  organizing  the  Senate  by  the  ap- 
pointment of  its  committees. 

Mr.  Pendleton,  of  Ohio,  the  leader  of  the  Demo- 
cratic caucus,  introduced  a resolution  that  the  Senate 
proceed  to  organize  by  appointing  a list  of  commit- 
tee-men named  by  him.  Mr.  Conkling,  of  l!^ew 
York,  opposed  the  motion.  He  said  it  was  true  the 
Democrats  had  a majority  while  the  four  Republican 
chairs  were  unfilled,  but  those  chairs,  it  was  well 
known,  would  be  filled  in  a few  days,  and  then  the 
Senate  would  have  a majority  composed  of  Repub- 
licans. This  provoked  Mr.  Hill’s  great  speech. 
His  theme  was  that  thirty-eight  Senators  had  been 
elected  by  Democratic  Legislatures  as  Democratic 
Senators,  and  Mr.  Davis  bad  declared  his  purpose  to 
vote  with  the  Democrats.  This  gave  the  Democrats 
thirty-nine  Senators  to  thirty-seven.  That  it  was 
impossible  the  Republicans  could  have  a majority, 


52 


History  of  the 


even  when  the  four  vacant  chairs  were  filled,  unless 
some  Senator,  elected  as  a Democrat,  should  prove 
false  to  his  trust,  and  he  did  not  believe  any  such 
despicable  creature  could  be  found.  He  rang  the 
changes  on  the  infamous  character  of  such  a man, 
if  such  an  one  existed,  and  he  painted  him  in  colors 
that  were  blacker  than  midnight  itself.  He  did  not 
make  a single  remark  that  could  be  construed  as  an 
allusion  to  any  Senator,  but  every  one  knew  that 
Mahone  had  sat  for  the  picture.  The  fire  became 
too  hot  for  Mahone.  He  could  not  stand  it ; abruptly 
breaking  in  upon  Mr.  Hill’s  remarks,  he  declared 
that  it  was  evident  the  Senator  was  endeavoring  to 
uncover  his  position,  and  force  him  to  state  how  he 
intended  to  vote,  and  a violent  debate  then  ensued 
which  developed  the  fact  that  Mahone  intended  to 
vote  with  the  Eepublican  Senators,  and  thus  they 
won  the  fight. 

The  debate  lasted  thirteen  days,  by  which  time 
the  four  vacant  Republican  chairs  were  filled.  Mr. 
Anthony  moved  that  Mr.  Pendleton’s  resolution  be 
indefinitely  postponed.  An  amusing  incident  oc- 
curred here.  By  mistake  Mahone  voted  as  his  con- 
stituents expected  him  to  vote.  He  cast  his  vote 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


53 


against  postponement,  and  had  to  ask  the  Senate  to 
allow  him  to  change  it  to  the  side  of  his  new  friends. 
This  was  done,  and  the  vote  stood  thirty-seven  ayes 
to  thirty-seven  noes,  two  Senators  being  paired. 
The  Vice-President  gave  the  casting  vote  for  post- 
poning, and  Mr.  Anthony  then  moving  a Eepuhlican 
set  of  committee-men,  the  same  thing  occurred,  and 
the  Senate  was  organized  as  a Republican  body. 
Mahone  voted  steadily  from  that  time  forward  with 
the  Republican  Senators,  and  received  his  reward. 
He  forced  his  Democratic  friend,  Riddleberger,  down 
the  throats  of  the  Republican  Senators  as  Sergeant- 
at-Arms  of  the  Senate,  and  he  forced  them  to  swallow 
his  friend,  George  C.  Gorham,  as  Secretary  of  the 
Senate.  From  that  time  forward  he  controlled  every 
appointment  made  by  Mr.  Garfield  or  Mr.  Arthur 
in  Virginia,  and  he  was  known  there  as  the  boss  ot 
the  Federal  patronage  for  the  State.  Ho  conceal- 
ment was  made  of  the  fact  that  the  Republicans 
bought  his  vote  for  the  price  paid,  and  Senator 
Sherman  defended  the  transaction  upon  the  floor 
of  the  Senate,  saying  : 

“Anything  that  will  beat  down  that  party,”  mean- 
ing the  Democratic,  “ and  build  up  our  own,  is  jus- 


54 


History  of  the 


tifiable  in  morals  and  in  law.”  The  Republicans 
won  their  fight,  and  enjoyed  their  “ green  goods,” 
but  it  is  very  doubtful  if  the  moral  judgment  of 
mankind  upon  the  matter  will  sustain  Senator  Sher- 
man. Tliis  good  result  has  followed  however.  We 
know  exactly  what  value  to  attach  to  Senator 
Mahone’s  statement  that  Mr.  Arthur  gave  him  effi- 
cient aid.  We  know  tliat  he  was  on  the  inside  and 
knew  whereof  he  spoke. 

Therefore  his  testimony  upon  this  point  would 
have  been  accepted  as  full  proof  had  it  stood  alone, 
but  there  would  have  been  abundant  evidence  with- 
out it.  Eai’ly  in  the  canvass,  the  controlling  men 
in  the  Republican  party  very  earnestly  opposed  any 
coalition  between  the  Republican  party  and  Vir- 
ginia’s part}'  of  repudiation,  and  while  it  was  under- 
stood that  Mr.  Garfield  rather  favored  joint  action 
between  them,  yet  he  used  no  coercive  measures  to 
that  end,  and  each  felt  himself  at  liberty  to  act  ac- 
cording to  his  own  discretion.  The  Virginia  Repub- 
licans, therefore,  who  opposed  a union,  carried  their 
hostility  to  it  to  the  extreme  point  of  assembling  in 
convention  at  Lynchburg,  and  nominating  a candi- 
date for  Governor,  and  to  making  preparations  to 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


55 


ran  a Republican  candidate  for  the  Legislature  in 
each  county. 

But  when  Mr.  Garfield  died,  and  Mr.  Arthur  be- 
came President,  the  complexion  of  matters  in  Vir- 
ginia, in  this  regard,  instantly  and  seriously  changed. 
It  was  communicated  to  each  Federal  ofiice-holder 
in  the  State  that  he  must  co-opei’ate  with  the  Re- 
adjusters, or  his  official  head  would  pay  the  penalty, 
and  a few  obstinate  ones  were  actually  removed,  and 
their  places  filled  with  Readjusters.  It  did  not  take 
many  lessons  of  this  sort  to  teach  the  new  political 
faith.  The  scenes  changed  as  if  by  magic.  All 
semblance  of  organized  Republican  opposition  to 
the  Readjusters  disappeared,  and  the  Readjuster 
party  of  Virginia  swallowed  the  Republican  party 
of  Virginia,  body  and  soul,  at  one  gulp. 

To  return  now  from  this  digression  : The  contest 
in  November,  1881,  resulted  in  the  election  of  the 
Readjusters’  candidate  for  Governor,  and  in  a ma- 
jority for  them  in  each  branch  of  the  Legislature. 

Having  now  a Governor  in  sympathy  with  “ forc- 
ible readjustment,”  the  Legislature  at  once  ad- 
dressed itself  to  the  task  of  destroying  the  tax 
receivable  coupons.  It  first  repudiated  all  of  them 


56 


History  of  the 


outright,  by  forbidding  the  State’s  officers  to  pay 
any  interest  whatever  upon  the  public  debt,  except 
upon  the  bonds  which  that  Legislature  itself  pro- 
vided for  issuing^ 

It  next  forbade  the  collectors  of  taxes  to  receive 
the  coupons  in  payment  of  any  taxes.^  So  that  as 
far  as  it  was  able  to  do  so,  it  destroyed  the  tax-pay- 
ing coupons. 

This  difficulty,  however,  remained  to  be  solved : 
The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  forbids  a State 
to  pass  any  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts, 
and  it  might  be  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  would  pronounce  their  legislation 
void,  as  it  had  pronounced  void  the  legislation  of 
Arkansas  and  Tennessee,  in  the  case  of  Woodruff 
vs.  Trapnall,  and  Furman  vs.  Uichol,  already  re- 
ferred to.  The  problem,  therefore,  to  be  solved  was 
how  to  maintain  the  legislation  within  the  limits  of 
the  lines  theretofore  laid  down  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States. 

The  bare  right  of  the  tax-payer  to  have  his  cou- 


Acts  1881 -’82,  p.  98,  ch.  84,  sec.  15. 
Ib.  ch.  40,  sec.  1,  p.  36. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


57 


pons  received  in  payment  of  his  taxes,  without  any 
remedy  to  compel  a recalcitrant  State  officer  to  re- 
spect that  right,  would  be  of  very  small  practical 
avail  to  a coupon  holder.  And  the  Readjusters  de- 
termined that  their  effective  legislation  should  be 
made  to  turn  upon  this  proposition.  It  had  long 
been  a doctrine,  and  a very  necessary  one,  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  that  a remedy 
for  enforcing  a contract,  in  existence  when  the  con- 
tract is  made,  enters  into  and  forms  a part  of  it, 
and  can  no  more  be  injuriously  impaired  than  any 
other  part  of  the  contract’s  obligation  can  be  im- 
paired. However,  that  doctrine  had  been  qualified 
by  that  tribunal  to  this  extent : That  there  might  be 
a change  of  remedy,  provided  the  one  substituted 
was  as  effective  as  the  first.  The  Legislature  of  Ten- 
nessee had  sought  to  get  rid  of  the  practical  efl:ect 
of  Furman  vs.  Hichol,  by  enacting  a statute  provid- 
ing that  when  the  bank  notes  were  presented  for 
payment  of  taxes,  the  collector  should  refuse  them 
and  require  the  tax-payer  to  pay  in  money,  leaving' 
the  tax-payer  the  right  to  sue  the  collector  to  recover 
the  money  back.  Whereupon,  if  it  was  found  that 
the  collector  ought  to  have  received  the  bank  notes 


58 


History  of  the 


his  money  would  be  returned  to  him,  and  the  bank 
notes  taken  in  its  place;  and  the  Supreme  Court 
bad  decided  in  Tennessee  vs.  Snead,  96  U.  S.  E.  in 
1877,  that  this  was  a valid  act  as  substituting  for  one 
remedy  another  that  was  just  as  effective.  The  Ke- 
adjusters  reasoned  thus : “ These  suits  must  be 

brought  in  the  State’s  own  courts,  and  we  will  pro- 
vide that  they  shall  be  brought  in  the  county  courts, 
all  of  which  we  have  just  filled  with  Readjuster 
judges.  It  will  be  strange  if  our  own  judges  can’t 
control  the  litigation  so  as  to  make  the  pretended 
remedy  no  remedy  at  all.  So  that  tax-payers,  each 
paying  but  a small  sum,  will  find  it  more  to  their 
interest  to  pay  at  once  in  money,  and  have  done 
with  the  matter,  rather  than  have  an  unequal  contest 
with  the  State  in  her  own  courts,  where  she  will  of 
course  have  a very  great  advantage  over  them”; 
and  they  took  their  measures  so  as  to  improve  very 
ingeniously  on  the  Tennessee  method. 

For  some  time  they  had  been  using  as  campaign 
fuel  the  statement  that  a number  of  the  State’s  cou- 
pons had  been  stolen  after  they  were  redeemed  and 
put  into  circulation  again,  and  that  others  had  been 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


59 


counterfeited  and  put  into  circulation — both  of  which 
statements  were  absolutely  false.® 

Accordingly  they  enacted  a statute,  the  preamble 
of  which  recited  that  there  were  bonds  with  tax 
receivable  coupons  attached  in  existence  that  had 
been  issued  without  authority  of  law ; that  there 
were  others  outstanding  that  were  spurious,  stolen, 
or  forged,  and  that  coupons  from  such  spurious, 
stolen,  or  forged  bonds  were  being  received  in  pay- 
ment of  taxes.  They  therefore  enacted  that  when 
coupons  were  tendered  a collector,  he  should  receive 
the  same  for  identilication  and  verification,  at  the 
same  time  requiring  the  tax-payer  to  pay  bis  taxes 
in  money.  That  he  should  certify  the  coupons  to 
the  corporation  or  county  court,  which  should 
empanel  a jurj'  to  try  whether  the  coupons  were  or 
were  not  genuine.  If  they  were  found  to  be  genuine, 
the  tax-payer’s  money  should  be  returned  to  him, 
and  the  coupons  put  into  the  treasury  in  payment  of 

’See  Mr.  Justice  Field’s  exposure  of  the  falsity  of  this  state- 
ment, in  his  opinion  Antoni  ».s.  Greenhow,  i07  U.  S.  R.,  at  p. 
792.  The  documents  that  he  refers  to  to  prove  their  falsity, 
may  be  seen  as  follows : House  Document  No.  2,  session  of 

1881;  House  Document  No,  8 ; House  Journal,  session  of 
1881-’82;  Senate  Document  No.  15 ; Senate  Journal,  session 
of  1881-’82. 


60 


History  of  the 


the  tax.  This  Act  involved  a hardship  upon  the  tax- 
payer, ill  making  him  lie  out  of  his  money  paid  to 
the  collector  and  out  of  that  paid  for  the  coupons 
also,  while  the  process  of  verification  went  on.  But 
this  was  not  the  feature  on  which  the  Beadjusters 
relied  to  make  their  Act  effective  as  a “coupon-killer,” 
the  name  by  which  they  at  once  christened  it.  They 
relied  on  the  judges  with  whom  they  had  filled  the 
' corporation  and  county  courts  to  make  the  suit  to 
recover  the  money  a farce,  and  the  complexion  of 
the  judiciary  which  they  had  established  in  Virginia 
gave  every  encouragement  to  the  hope  that  they  en- 
tertained. This  subject,  however,  is  entitled  to  a 
separate  chapter;  but  before  entering  on  it,  it  is 
proper  to  add  that  on  the  14th  of  February,  1882, 
(Acts  1881~’82,  p.  88)  they  enacted  a statute  which 
repudiated  all  interest  claims  of  all  sorts  whatever 
that  had  accrued  prior  thereto,  and  provided  for  re- 
funding the  entire  debt.  This  provided  for  a new 
principal  as  of  that  date  of  $21,035,377,15,  bearing 
three  per  cent,  interest.  If  the  creditors  had  ac- 
cepted its  provisions  (which  a part  did),  it  would 
have  cut  their  principal  down  nearly  one-half,  and 
would  have  made  the  annual  interest  on  that  half 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


61 


a little  more  than  one-fourth  of  the  annual  interest 
on  the  principal  as  it  stood  after  setting  aside  one- 
third  of  it  as  West  Virginia’s  part,  according  to  the 
interest  promises  as  provided  for  in  the  bond. 


62 


History  of  the 


CHAPTER  V. 

There  are  nearly  one  hundred  counties  in  the 
State  of  Virginia,  each  one  of  which  has  a 
county  judge.  A new  one  for  each  county  was 
to  be  chosen  by  tlie  Legislature  in  the  winter  of 
1879-’80.  The  reader  will  remember  that  this  was 
the  first  Legislature  elected  after  the  Readjuster  party 
was  formed,  and  that  party  had  a majority  in  each 
branch  of  the  Legislature.  “ Forcible  readjustment  ” 
in  addition  to  its  dishonesty  meant  defiance  or  eva- 
sion of  the  organic  law  of  the  land.  Both  ideas  are 
naturally  shocking  to  the  instincts  and  teaching  of 
all  lawyers  entitled  to  be  called  lawyers,  and,  there- 
fore, to  the  credit  of  the  profession  be  it  said,  the 
Readjuster  party  had  but  few  reputable  lawyers  in 
its  ranks.  The  party  was,  therefore,  very  short  of 
material  with  which  to  fill  the  county  judgeships. 
With  very  few  exceptions  they  put  upon  the  State  a 
county  judiciary  that  greatly  shocked  the  moral 
sense  of  the  people. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


63 


It  has  already  been  said  that  all  the  work  of  this 
Legislature  was  cut  out  in  a caucus  of  the  Readjuster 
members.  When  the  selection  of  a judge  for 
Franklin  county  was  under  consideration,  General 
Jubal  A.  Farly,  a citizen  of  Franklin  county,  sent 
into  the  caucus,  and  had  read  to  it,  a written  state- 
ment signed  by  himself,  stating  that  one  Thomas  B. 
Claiborne,  whom  it  was  understood  the  caucus  would 
choose,  was  a professional  gambler;  and  not  only  so, 
but  a professional  gambler  who  lived  by  cheating, 
and  that  this  fact  was  one  of  common  notoriety  in 
Franklin  county,  where  Claiborne  lived.  That  he 
made  a business  of  playing  the  game  of  “ poker  ” 
with  an  instrument  known  amongst  cheating  pro- 
fessional gamblers  as  a “ Lizzard,”  a thing  concealed 
in  the  bosom  under  the  vest,  with  an  attachment 
extending  down  the  leg  to  the  foot,  which  enables 
the  player  using  it  to  exchange  the  hand  which  is 
dealt  him,  if  he  thinks  it  will  not  win,  for  another  in 
the  clutch  of  the  instrument.  He  told  them  that 
the  “ Lizzard  ” was  at  that  moment  in  the  possession 
of  a blacksmith  named  Hambrick,  with  whom  Clai- 
borne had  left  it  for  repairs,  and  he  gave  them  the 
name  of  a witness  who  had  seen  it  in  Hambrick’s 


64 


History  of  the 


possession.  In  addition,  Claiborne  was  no  lawyer. 
The  Readjuster  caucus  refused  to  investigate  the 
charges  against  Claiborne,  and  named  him  for  county 
judge  of  Franklin  county. 

When  the  election  came  on  before  the  Legislature, 
and  Claiborne  was  put  up  for  the  place,  all  these  facts 
were  again  fully  ventilated,  and  this  time  before  the 
public;  yet  the  Readjusters,  to  a man,  voted  for 
Claiborne,  and  he  was  made  judge  of  Franklin 
county  for  six  years.^ 

The  statute  law  of  Virginia  makes  it  a penal 
offence  to  gamble  at  “ any  ordinary,  race-field,  or 

'See  General  Early’s  written  statement  in  full  in  Richmond 
State  for  January  22,  1880.  He  also  produced  evidence  that 
Claiborne,  who  had  been  in  the  service  of  the  United  States 
Government,  had  been  dismissed  from  the  service  by  the  head 
of  the  Interior  Department  for  filing  false  and  forged  vouch- 
ers. When  he  was  nominated  in  the  House  of  Delegates  for 
the  place  of  judge  of  Franklin  county,  a member  of  the  House 
offered  a joint  resolution  reciting  that  grave  charges  had  been 
made  on  the  floor  of  both  houses  affecting  the  personal  charac- 
ter of  Claiborne,  and  asking  that  a committee  be  appointed 
to  investigate  them.  The  Readjusters,  however,  voted  the 
resolution  down,  and  proceeded  to  elect  him  judge. — House 
Journal,  session  1879-’80,  p.  173. 

The  Readjusters’  caucus  nominated  O.  W.  Purvis  for  judge 
of  Albemarle  county,  the  home  of  Thomas  Jefferson.  When 
he  was  put  in  nomination  for  the  office  in  the  House  of  Dele- 
gates the  delegate  from  Albemarle  offered  a joint  resolution 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


65 


other  public  place.”  During  the  time  Claiborne  Avas 
judge  of  Franklin  county  the  grand  jury  presented 
him  in  his  OAvn  court  for  playing  and  betting  at 
cards  at  an  “ ordinary.”  As  he  could  not  sit  in  his 
OAvn  trial,  he  called  upon  a brother  Readjuster  judge 
(Judge  Mays,  of  Botetourt  county,)  to  try  the  case. 
When  the  case  came  on  for  trial  the  copy  of  the  act 
which  was  used  in  court  omitted  the  comma  between 
“ ordinary  ” and  race-course.  Judge  Mays  decided 
that  the  act  prohibited  gaming  only  at  “ ordinary 
race-courses,”  and  not  at  an  ordinary,”  stating  that 
there  are  “ordinary”  and  “extraordinary”  race- 

as  follows,  signed  by  himself  and  the  Senator  and  other  dele- 
gate, both  the  latter  Republicans: 

“Whereas  O.  W.  Purvis  having  been  presented  to  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  as  judge  for  the  county  of  Albemarle,  the  under- 
signed, comprising  the  entire  delegation  from  said  county, 
and  representing  all  shades  of  political  opinion,  most  earnestly 
protest  against  such  indignity  as  his  election  implies  being 
offered  to  our  county  and  the  people  whom  we  represent.  We 
state  distinctly  that  the  said  O.  W.  Purvis,  from  his  early 
manhood,  has  been  regarded  as  a dishonest,  corrupt,  fraudu- 
lent, and  untruthful  man,  and  under  no  circumstances  could 
he  be  elected  to  any  office  in  the ’gift  of  the  people  of  Albe- 
marle.’’ 

They  therefore  asked  for  a committee  to  investigate  these 
charges.  House  Journal  1879-’80  ; Richmond  State,  January 
13,  1880. 


66 


History  of  the 


courses,  the  former  being  such  as  were  open  to  the 
public,  while  the  latter  were  for  private  use  only; 
and  he  quashed  the  indictment.  When  the  white 
people  regained  control  of  their  State  government 
both  these  worthies  were  impeached,  and  both  re- 
signed before  their  trials  came  on.^ 

The  traditions  of  the  bench  in  Virginia  had  al- 
waj’s  been  of  the  highest  and  most  ennobling 
character.  No  people  had  ever  had  a loftier  and 
purer  judiciary  than  she  had  always  had,  and  the 
people  had  always  been  trained  to  look  upon  their 
judges  as  spotless  and  above  reproach.  The  degra- 
dation of  the  judiciary  whicli  Mahone  accomplished 
bj'  foisting  these  ignorant,  incompetent,  and  dishon- 
est judges  upon  the  people  in  every  locality  shocked 
the  moral  sense  of  the  public  beyond  description, 
and  was  the  beginning  of  that  ground-swell  destined 
sooner  or  later  to  hurl  him  and  his  party  from  power. 
The  judiciary  established  by  him  was  only  one 
manifestation  of  the  ideas  and  theories  that  lay  back 
of  the  party’s  organization.  It  was  a party  that 
aimed  at  controlling  the  government  of  the  State 

^See  the  proceedings  in  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Dele- 
gates, session  1883-’84. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


67 


by  collecting  together  all  the  worst  elements  of  so- 
ciety and  tying  them  together  for  joint  action  by 
the  bonds  of  public  plunder.  Mutterings  began  to 
be  heard,  but  the  people  move  slowly;  and  as  the 
great  purpose  for  which  the  party  was  formed,  the 
repudiation  of  the  public  debt,  was  not  yet  accom- 
plished, that  purpose  held  his  party  together  for  the 
final  struggle  in  ITovember,  1881,  which  resulted,  as 
already  stated,  in  his  party  electing  the  Governor 
and  a majority  in  each  branch  of  the  Legislature. 

And  now  the  full  scope  of  the  devilish  purposes 
Mahone  had  in  view  began  to  be  made  known.  It 
would  be  far  from  doing  justice  to  the  case  to  say 
that  Mahone  was  the  guiding  spirit  of  his  parfy. 
He  was  his  party.  The  negroes,  the  bulk  of  his 
voters,  followed  his  orders  bliudlj'^  and  to  a man. 
Ills  white  associates  received  orders  from  him  as 
subordinate  military  officers  receive  theirs  from  their 
superiors.  He  was  absolutely  the  autocrat  of  his 
party,  and  his  mind  was  fatally  bent  on  establishing 
in  Virginia  the  reign  of  vice,  corruption,  and  inde- 
cency. He  plotted  the  accomplishment  of  his  pur- 
poses with  sagacity  and  far-seeing  vision 

During  the  canvass  for  the  election  of  the  Legis- 


68 


History  of  the 


lature,  in  the  fall  of  1881,  he  sent  to  each  candidate 
nominated  by  the  Readjusters  the  following  docu- 
ment: 

“ I hereby  pledge  myself  to  stand  by  the  Eead- 
juster  party  and  platform,  and  to  go  into  caucus 
with  the  Readjuster  members  of  the  Legislature, 
and  vote  for  all  measures,  nominees,  and  candidates 
to  be  elected  by  the  Legislature  that  meets  in  Rich- 
mond as  the  caucus  may  agree  upon.”® 

Each  candidate  was  required  to  sign  this  pledge 
and  return  it  to  Mahone.  As  no  Readjuster  candi- 
date could  be  elected  without  Mahone’s  endorsement 
and  consent,  it  may  readily  be  supposed  that  most 
of  them  signed  the  pledge.  It  afterwards  transpired 
that  more  than  three-fourths  of  those  that  were 
elected  had  signed  it.'*  This  made  Mahone  complete 
master  of  the  situation.  He  had  a majority  of  each 
house  bound  to  resolve  on  men  and  measures  in 
caucus,  and  he  was  so  completely  master  of  his  cau- 
cus that  he  could  dictate  there  whatever  he  wished. 
The  infamy  of  his  purposes  soon  began  to  disclose 

“See  Lybrock’s  letter  in  Richmond  of  September 

12, 1882. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


69 


themselves.  A general  outline  of  some  of  bis 
measures  will  be  given : 

First.  Such  offices  as  the  Legislature  had  to  fill 
were  filled  with  those  known  to  be  his  tools.® 

Second.  He  brought  forward  a measure  to  crush 
all  the  courts,  and  make  them  merely  political  sub- 
ordinates of  Mahone.® 

Third.  Most  of  the  circuit  courts  were  filled  by 
upright  judges  who  had  been  placed  in  them  under 
the  old  condition  of  things  and  whose  terms  of  office 
were  not  yet  expired.  He  brought  forward  a meas- 
ure for  legislating  them  out  of  office  and  filling  their 
places  with  his  tools.’ 

Fourth.  He  brought  forward  a measure  for  re- 
casting the  Congressional  Districts,  so  that  he  would 
have  been  able  to  send  one  of  his  tools  to  Congress 
from  each.® 

Fifth.  The  “ Spoils  System  ” never  had  so  com- 
plete an  illustration  as  in  another  measure  brought 
forward  by  him. 


^Ib. 

«Ib. 

Tb. 

®Ib. 


70 


History  of  the 


From  the  foundation  of  the  colony,  it  had  been 
the  custom  of  the  courts  \Yhen  they  decreed  sales  of 
property  to  appoint  as  commissioners  to  make  the 
sales,  some  of  the  parties  who  were  interested,  to 
make  the  property  bring  the  best  price  possible. 
Mahone’s  measure  provided  for  a Commissioner  of 
Sales  for  each  court,  who  should  be  appointed  by 
the  Governor,  His  bill  provides  that  neither  the 
court  nor  the  parties  interested,  even  by  consent 
entered  of  record,  could  make  any  judicial  sale.  It 
must  be  made  by  his  political  appointees,  tools  of 
course  of  Mahone.  It  provided  further  that  the 
Commissioner  of  Sales  should  select  a newspaper  in 
each  county  in  which  alone  advertisement  of  the 
judicial  sales  should  be  made.  In  this  way  he  se- 
cured local  agents  and  a local  organ  in  each  county.' 

All  these  measures,  and  many  more  just  as  odious, 
were  adopted  under  Mahone’s  dictation  by  his 
caucus,  and  were  presented  in  the  House  of  Dele- 
gates and  passed  by  it,  but  were  defeated  in  the 
Senate,  because  four  Senators  of  his  party  took  the 

®See  a full  account  of  all  these  measures  in  the  letter  of 
Judge  Lybrook  already  referred  to,  and  in  one  from  B.  B. 
Munford,  Esq.,  in  the  Richmond  State  of  September  13, 1889, 
“What  is  Mahoneism?  ” 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


71 


stand  that  they  were  elected  to  readjust  the  debt  and 
not  to  pass  Mahone’s  partisan  measures,  and,  voting 
with  the  Democrats,  they  succeeded  in  defeating 
them. 

These  matters  were  thoroughly  ventilated  through- 
out the  State,  and  they  aroused  what,  speaking  very 
mildly,  may  be  called  a very  ugly  spirit  and  temper. 
They  led  to  what  is  known  popularly  I^’orth  as  the 
“ Danville  Massacre.” 

The  white  people  saw  very  plainly  that  it  was 
Mahone’s  purpose  to  cajole  away  a part  of  the  white 
people — that  part  in  favor  of  repudiating  the  public 
debt — by  a platform  of  repudiation,  and  to  join  it  on 
to  the  solid  negro  vote,  the  two  together  constituting 
a majority  of  the  voters  of  the  State,  and  with  this 
conglomerate  party  to  set  up  a government  for  the 
state  of  indecency,  immorality,  and  vice.  The  ground- 
swell  of  indignation  began  to  set  in.  The  white 
people  began  to  ask  themselves  “ why  should  we 
make  a further  contest  for  the  public  debt.  It  is 
owned  by  the  citizens  of  the  iSTorth  and  of  England. 
We  have  been  struggling  for  the  privilege  of  taxing 
ourselves  to  pay  it,  and  here  are  the  very  citizens  of 
the  Horth  who  own  the  debt,  through  their  Presi- 


72 


History  of  the 


dent,  aiding  Mahone  in  his  efforts  to  repudiate  it, 
and,  at  the  sanae  time,  aiding  him  to  establish  his 
infamous  local  government  here  to  insult  and  pillage 
us.”  The  heroic  resolution  that  had  animated  the 
people,  to  pay  their  debt  out  of  their  grinding  pov- 
erty, because  it  affected  their  honor,  began  to  yield, 
when  an  incident  occurred  which  operated  like  the 
last  straw  upon  the  camel’s  back.  This  was  a de- 
cision rendered  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


73 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THROUGHOIJT  all  of  this  contest  the  white  people 
of  Virginia  had  fought  not  only  for  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  public  debt  should  be  paid ; they 
had  contended  also  for  the  supremacy  of  the  organic 
law  and  cheerful,  implicit  obedience  to  it.  The 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  had  decided  in 
1850  that  as  Arkansas  had  deliberately  entered  into 
a contract  similar  to  that  which  Virginia  had  made, 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  protected  it, 
and  that  Arkansas  must  recognize  and  perform  it. 
It  had  decided  the  same  thing  in  respect  to  Ten- 
nessee in  1869, 

The  white  people  of  Virginia  thus  understood  that 
tribunal  to  have  decided  solemnly  that  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  enjoined  it  on  them  as  a 
duty  to  receive  the  coupons  in  payment  of  the  taxes, 
and  they  would  not  tolerate  any  suggestion,  either 
to  defy  the  Constitution  openly,  or  to  evade  its  man- 
dates by  indirect  tricks.  This  was  the  text  from 


1 *2 


HiSTOB-Y  of  the 


wLich  their  editors  wrote,  and  their  speakers  de- 
claimed in  everr  quarter  of  the  State,  in  both  the 
canvasses  where  the  public  debt  was  the  issue — that 
of  lc79  and  that  of  18^1.  The  Seadjusters,  in  each 
canvass,  put  forward  the  proposition  that  they  would 
beat  the  Supreme  Court  by  the  Acts  of  the  Legisla- 
ture they  would  pass.  The  debt-payers  declared 
that  their  loyalty  and  duty  as  citizens  c-omj>el]ed 
them  to  accept  its  decisions,  and  obey  them  in  goo<l 
faith. 

As  soon  as  the  Legislature  of  I55I  enacted  the 
statute  already  described,  dubbed  by  them  and 
called  in  the  vernacular  *•  Coupon-Killer  Xo.  1.”  the 
bondholders  organized  themselves  to  contest  it  in 
the  courts,  and  they  did  me  the  honor  to  select  me 
as  their  representative.  A case  was  made  up  and 
carried  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  State*, 
when,  to  the  dismav  of  the  creditors  and  the  un- 
bounded  astonishment  of  the  white  people  of  Vir- 
ginia, the  Acd  was  declared  to  be  one  that  did  not 
impair  the  obligation  of  the  coup»on  contract,  and 
one  consistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.^  Of  course  there  is  no  intention  to  cast  the 


’ADtoni  M.  Gi^chow,  107  U.  5.  R.  p.  709. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


slightest  doubt  here  upon  the  fairness  and  good  faith 
of  that  tribunal,  but  the  faithful  historian  must  re- 
late history  as  it  is,  and  it  cannot  he  denied,  that  this 
decision  produced  a profound  sensation  in  Virginia, 
and  one  most  damaging  to  the  esteem  in  which  the 
people  held  the  court.  The  court  consisted  exclu- 
sively of  Eepublican  judges  except  one, who  dissented. 
The  Eepublican  President  and  Senators  had  just 
entered  into  their  contract  with  Senator  Mahoue, 
whereby  he  was  to  be  allowed  to  control  all  Federal 
appointments  in  Virginia,  in  consideration  of  voting 
with  the  Eepublicans  in  the  United  States  Senate. 
The  people  of  Virginia  jumped  to  the  conclusion  that 
a Eepublican  court  had  become  part  of  the  bargain 
with  Mahone.  and  had  sustained  his  legislation  in 
opposition  to  their  preceding  decisions,  in  order  that 
his  hands  might  be  held  up.* 


^ The  temper  of  the  people  may  he  fairly  judged  of  by  the 
following  plank  put  into  the  platform  of  the  Democratic  party 
at  its  convention  held  at  Roanoke  in  July,  ISio.  It  has  refer- 
ence to  the  state  of  affairs  after  the  Supreme  Court  had  de- 
cided the  case  of  Poindexter  r^.  Greenhow — but  it  describes 
just  as  well  the  sentiment  after  the  decision  of  Antoni  rs. 
Greenhow: 

“The  Democratic  party  heretofore  pledged  as  final  its  ac- 
ceptance of  the  settlement  of  the  public  debt,  known  as  the 


76 


History  of  the 


The  temper  of  the  white  people  towards  the  public 
debt  became  at  once  changed,  and  radically  changed. 
From  desiring  to  pay  it,  they  became  absolutely  in- 
ditferent  as  to  whether  it  was  paid  or  not;  but 
whether  paid  or  repudiated,  one  stern  resolve  took 
possession  of  them.  They  unanimously  resolved 
that  they  would  never  more  allow  it  to  be  used  by 
demagogues,  as  a text  by  which  their  own  vote 
could  be  divided  and  the  State  government  thus 
turned  over  to  a hybrid  party  composed  of  the  solid 
negroes  and  thriftless  whites,  led  by  unscrupulous 
white  adventurers.  They  resolved  that  the  formation 
of  a pure  government  for  their  State  was  of  first  im- 
portance ; considerations  affecting  the  public  debt  of 
second. 

They  endured  the  government  which  Mahone  had 
set  up  until  1883,  in  the  fall  of  which  jmar  a new 

Riddleberger  Bill,  which  had  then  been  declared  constitu- 
tional b3'  the  courts,  State  and  Federal,  and  its  opposition  to 
all  further  agitation  of  the  question,  or  by  any  disturbance  of 
that  settlement,  b}’  repeal  or  otherwise.  This  pledge  was  ob- 
served with  scrupulous  fidelity  on  the  part  of  our  representa- 
tives by  the  enactment  of  all  needful  and  proper  measures  of 
legislation,  and  the  State  of  Virginia  would  have  been  forever 
freed  from  the  harassing  demands  of  the  public  creditor,  but 
for  the  sudden  and  inequitable  reversal  of  its  own  decision  by 
a Republican  court.” — Richmond  Dispatch,  July  31,  1885. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


77 


Legislature  was  to  be  elected,  and  then  they  gathered 
together  all  their  resources  to  make  one  desperate 
etfort  to  rid  themselves  of  Mahone  and  his  vampires. 
They  pointed  out  to  their  brethren  who  had  gone 
ofi‘  to  Mahone,  how  he  had  cajoled  them  under  pre- 
texts relating  to  the  public  debt  to  join  him  in  estab- 
lishing a government  of  indecency  for  the  State,  that 
disgraced  every  honest  man  connected  with  it;  they 
declared  to  them  that  as  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  had  decided  the  measures  of  the  Re- 
adjusters to  be  valid  they  could  say  nothing  more 
about  the  debt,  and  they  entreated  them  to  come 
back  and  aid  in  re-establishing  a State  government 
that  it  would  be  possible  for  a self-respecting  man  to 
live  under.  A general  convention  of  the  white  peo- 
ple, called  a convention  of  the  Democratic  party  of 
the  State,  was  held  in  Lynchburg  in  July,  1883, 
which  adopted  a party  platform  for  the  election  of 
members  of  the  Legislature  to  be  held  in  November, 
1883.  This  platform  contained  the  following  con- 
cerning the  debt : 

“The  Democratic  party  accepts  as  final,  the  recent 
settlement  of  the  public  debt  pronounced  constitu- 
tional by  the  courts  of  last  resort.  State  and  Federal, 


78 


History  of  the 


and  will  oppose  all  agitation  of  the  question  or  any 
disturbance  of  that  settlement  by  appeal  or  other- 
wise.”® 

This  declaration  brought  both  sections  of  the  white 
people  together  again,  and  in  the  election  in  I7ovem- 
ber,  1883,  they  carried  both  branches  of  the  Legisla- 
ture triumphantly  and  gave  Mahoneism  an  overthrow 
so  notable  that  he  has  never  since  been  able  to  raise 
his  head  effectively  in  the  State. 

If  the  white  people  had  confined  themselves  to  the 
position  taken  by  the  Lynchburg  platform — fhat  is,  a 
position  of  passiveness — their  attitude  would  have 
been  one  of  dignity  and  self-respect  entirely  con- 
formable to  the  heroic  effort  they  had  made  to  tax 
themselves  to  pay  a debt  owned  by  strangers.  They 
had  only  to  stand  with  their  arms  folded.  If  the 
measures  of  the  Keadjusters  worked  out  their  aim, 
to  the  Readjusters  would  belong  whatever  credit  at- 
tached to  it.  If  they  failed  in  their  aim,  on  the 
Readjusters’  shoulders  all  the  blame  would  have 
rested,  and  the  white  people  could  have  said  it  was 
no  disaster  of  their  making.  Unfortunately,  they 
allowed  their  new  allies  to  take  the  lead  in  party 

“Richmond  Dispatch,  July  27,  1833. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


79 


nlFairs,  and  these  have  led  them  far  away  from  their 
old  position,  and  have  subjected  the  whole  body  to 
severe  criticism.  From  that  election  until  now 
the  Democratic  party  has  had  complete  control  of 
tlie  State  of  Virginia,  and  the  acts  they  have  passed 
concerning  the  public  debt,  and  their  whole  course 
touching  this  matter,  has  been  one  to  make  every 
friend  of  Virginia  sad.* 

The  case  of  Antoni  vs.  Greenhow  was  an  applica- 
tion to  the  courts  to  compel  a collector  of  taxes  to 
receive  coupons.  The  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  was  that  if  a tax-payer  insists  upon  paying  his 
taxes  by  forcing  them  into  the  State’s  treasury  it  is  no 
hardship  on  him  that  he  should  be  required  to  do  so 
according  to  the  methods  the  State  prescribes,  rather 
than  according  to  the  method  he  may  elect.  The 
Court,  however,  was  very  emphatic  in  declaring  that 
the  coupon  contained  an  inviolable  contract,  the 
obligation  of  which  the  State  could  not  impair,  and 
it  said  in  terms  that  it  was  the  tax-payer’s  right  to 
“have  his  coupon  received  when  offered.”  These 
two  propositions  seemed  logically  to  suggest  a third — 

^See  resume  of  the  atrocious  acts  that  have  been  passed 
since  1883,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Justice  Bradley,  McGahey  vs. 
Virginia  135  U.  S.  R.  p.  669  et  seq. 


80 


History  of  the 


to-wit,  as  it  was  the  tax-payer’s  right  to  have  his 
coupon  received  “when  ottered,”  the  tender  of  the 
-coupon  extinguished  the  tax,  and  a collector  who 
molested  the  tax-payer  after  such  tender  would  do 
so  at  his  peril  and  would  be  liable  to  him  for  dam- 
ages. If  this  were  really  what  was  meant,  and  it 
seemed  evident  that  it  was,  then  the  bondholders, 
instead  of  losing,  had  gained  their  case.  It  was  of 
no  moment  to  them  whether  the  State  collected  her 
coupons  from  her  tax-payers  or  whether  she  did  not. 
All  they  were  interested -in  was  to  find  a market  for 
their  coupons,  and  the  tax-payer  would  surely  buy 
them  if  the  tender  of  them  paid  the  tax  and  they 
could  secure  protection  in  respect  of  the  tax  after 
that  tender.  Representing  the  bondholders,  I at 
once  announced  publicly  through  the  press  that  this 
seemed  to  be  the  effect  of  the  decision,  though  I 
was  much  derided  for  doing  so,  and  I at  once  made 
preparations  to  test  the  question  whether  this  was 
or  was  not  its  effect.  I prepared  the  necessary 
cases  and  took  them  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  which  decided,  in  the  spring  of  1885, 
that  my  view  of  the  law  was  correct.® 


^Poindexter  vs.  Greenhow,  114  U.  S.  R.  269. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


81 


But  it  was  evident  that  in  getting  this  decision  my 
task  would  be  far  from  being  completed.  The  hor- 
rors of  the  government  which  Mahone  had  set  up  in 
the  State  had  so  embittered  the  people  that  the 
creditors  no  longer  had  any  friends  there  willing  to 
move  hand  or  foot  in  their  behalf.  The  State’s 
judiciary  was  almost  wholly  of  his  creation,  and 
composed  of  men  put  into  office  to  destroy  the  cou- 
pons. The  tax-collector  and  the  tax-payer  were  both 
citizens  of  Virginia,  and  if  the  tax-payer’s  property, 
after  a tender  of  coupons  was  made  by  him,  was 
seized  by  the  collector  and  sold,  thus  forcing  pay- 
ment in  money,  it  seemed  useless  to  sue  him  for  his 
trespass  in  the  State’s  courts  organized  to  defeat  the 
tax-payer  in  that  very  litigation.  It  seemed,  there- 
fore, that  unless  some  impartial  judiciary  could  be 
appealed  to  the  naked  declaration  that  a tender  of 
the  coupons  paid  the  tax  would  be  of  little  practical 
avail  to  the  creditors.  The  United  States  Circuit 
Court  of  Virginia  could  be  relied  on  as  an  impartial 
tribunal  between  the  parties,  but  from  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Government  it  had  been  a maxim  of  the 
law  that  a suit  could  not  be  brought  in  the  United 
States  Court  by  one  citizen  of  a State  against  an- 


82 


History  of  the 


other  citizen  of  the  same  State.  The  problem, 
therefore,  was  to  get  jurisdiction  for  the  United 
States  Court  of  actions  for  damages  where  the  State's 
collectors  trespassed  on  tax-payers  who  had  tendered 
coupons.  Congress  had  very  recently  revised  the 
matter  of  the  jurisdiction  of  these  courts,  and  had 
given  them,  by  the  Act  of  1875,  jurisdiction  of  all 
suits  “arising  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.”  When  tax-collectors  levied  on  tax-payers’ 
property  it  was  by  virtue  of  an  Act  of  Assembly  of 
the  Virginia  Legislature,  and  I put  forward  the  claim 
that  this  Act  was  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  and  that  being  so,  the  tax-payer’s 
suit  against  the  collector  for  damages  would  be  one 
“arising  under  the  Constitution  of  the  Ltnited 
States,”  and  being  so,  was  one  which  he  might  bring 
in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court,  although  both 
plaintiff  and  defendant  were  citizens  of  Virginia. 
To  test  this  question  I made  up  and  carried  a case 
to  the  Supreme  Court,  and  it  held  that  I was  right.® 
I had  now,  therefore,  the  fundamental  right  estab- 
lished and  an  impartial  tribunal  in  which  I could 
seek  redress  for  a violation  of  the  right. 


‘Smith  vs.  Greenhow,  109  U.  S.  R.  669. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


83 


Information  respecting  the  state  of  the  law  soon 
spread  among  the  tax-payers,  and  as  coupons  could 
be  bought  for  about  forty  cents  on  the  dollar  the 
temptation  to  pay  taxes  with  them  prevailed  with, 
many  tax-payers.  The  government  of  the  State  did 
all  in  its  power  to  prevent  this  being  done.  Tax- 
payers were  discouraged  from  using  coupons  in 
every  way  possible,  and  in  addition  collectors  were 
instructed  to  seize  and  sell  the  property  of  all  those 
who  stood  on  a tender  of  coupons,  with  a promise 
from  the  State  authorities  that  they  would  he  indem- 
nified, the  Legislature  having  passed  an  act  making 
provision  for  this  indemnification.^  The  officers 
levied  and  sold  property  and  I brought  actions  for 
damages  in  the  United  States  Court,  in  all  of  which 
I recovered  damages,®  The  use  of  coupons  was 
spreading  rapidly,  and  it  became  evident  that  the 
State  would  be  forced  to  pay  her  debt  unless  some- 
thing could  be  done  to  stop  the  use  of  coupons. 
Thereupon  the  wise  men  of  Virginia  put  their  heads 
together  and  devised  an  Act  of  Assembly  which,  for 

^Acts  1885-’86,  p.  228,  ch.  216. 

®See  a report  of  two  of  these  trials  in  the  twenty-ninth  vol- 
ume of  Federal  Reporter,  p.  238. 


8i 


History  of  the 


ingenious  cunning  to  pervert  the  law  and  justice,  has 
no  parallel  in  the  annals  of  legislation. 

For  a long  time  past  the  demands  of  commerce 
have  made  it  necessary  that  most  commercial  securi- 
ties shall  be  engraved  simpljg  without  any  sign- 
manual  upon  them.  Yielding  to  this  commercial 
demand,  the  Act  of  the  Virginia  Legislature  author- 
izing the  issue  of  her  bonds  and  tax  receivable  cou- 
pons provided  that  the  bonds  should  he  signed  by 
her  Treasurer  and  Second  Auditor,  but  that  the 
coupons  should  be  engraved  simpljn  The  coupons 
are  negotiable  instruments  and  paj’able  to  the  bearer. 
The  whole  idea  connected  with  them  is  that  if  the 
State  does  not  pay  them  at  maturity  the  bondholder 
may  sell  them  to  a tax-payer,  who  will  acquire  the 
right  to  pay  his  taxes  with  them.  The  fundamental 
idea  is,  therefore,  that  the  coupon  may  be  owned  by 
one  person,  the  bond  by  another,  between  whom 
there  may  be  no  connecting  link  whatever.  As  a 
means  of  embarrassing  those  who  purchased  the 
coupons,  the  Virginia  Legislature  enacted  a statute 
which  provided  that  in  any  issue  the  State’s  repre- 
sentative might  call  upon  the  coupon  holder  to  pro- 
duce the  bond  from  which  it  came,  and  another  Act 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


85 


forbade  the  coupon  holder  to  prove  a coupon  genuine 
by  the  testimony  of  expert  witnesses — the  only  evi- 
dence by  wdiich  detached  coupons  could  possibly  be 
proved.® 

In  1887,  the  year  in  which  the  ingeniously-devised 
statute  was  passed,  her  highest  court  had  decided 
that  these  two  Acts  were  constitutional,  and  that  they 
did  not  impair  the  obligation  of  the  contract  em- 
braced in  the  coupon. “ If,  then,  any  litigation  that 
might  take  place  over  the  coupons  must  take  place 
in  the  State’s  own  courts,  she  seemed  to  be  pretty 
well  hedged  around  against  them.  One  statute  for- 
bade payment  of  the  coupons,  another  forbade  her 
officers  to  receive  them  for  taxes,  then  another 
directed  her  officers  to  seize  and  sell  the  property  of 
the  tax-payer  who  tendered  coupons,  another  indem- 
nified him  against  loss  for  such  seizure,  and  the  two 
last  named  made  it  impossible  for  a holder  to  prove 
his  coupons  when  they  were  disputed.  From  the 
State’s  standpoint,  the  great  desideratum  was  to  end 
litigation,  when  coupons  were  involved,  in  the 


® Acts  1885-’86,  p.  36,  ch.  45;  Ib.,  p.  40,  ch.  49. 
w Weller's  Case,  82  Ya.  R.  721;  McGahey's  Case,  85  Ya.  R, 
519. 


86 


History  of  the 


United  States  Courts,  where  she  would  receive  no 
more  consideration  than  any  other  party,  and  have 
it  to  take  place  in  her  own  courts,  owned  and  domi- 
nated by  her,  where  she  could  mould  it  so  as  to 
suit  her  own  purposes  and  have  all  the  advantages 
necessary  over  the  coupon  holder. 

Accordingly,  in  May,  1887,  her  Legislature  enacted 
a statute  (immediatel}?^  dubbed  in  the  vernacular  the 
“ Coupon  Crusher  ”)  which  provided  that  when  cou- 
pons were  tendered  a collector  of  taxes,  he  should 
report  that  fact  to  the  Commonwealth’s  attorney, 
who  was  instructed  to  sue  the  tax-payer  for  his  tax 
in  the  State’s  court.  If  the  tax-payer  pleaded  that 
he  had  tendered  coupons,  he  was  required  to  prove 
them  genuine  (which  of  course  he  could  not  do 
without  the  bond,  and  that  he  did  not  have  and 
could  not  get),  judgment  would  of  course  go  against 
him  for  the  tax,  with  a penalty  and  interest  and  the 
costs,  including  a fee  in  each  case  to  the  Com- 
monwealth’s attorney  of  §10.  Execution  was  to 
issue  on  the  judgment.  If  the  tax-payer  tendered 
coupons  on  the  payment  of  the  execution,  the  officer 
was  to  refuse  them,  and  report  that  fact  to  the  Com- 
monwealth’s attorney,  who  was  to  sue  the  tax-payer 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


87 


again  on  the  judgment.  Judgment  would  of  course 
go  against  the  tax-payer  in  this  second  suit,  and 
another  set  of  costs  was  to  be  taxed,  including 
another  fee  of  §10  to  the  Commonwealth’s  attorney. 
Execution  was  to  go  out  on  this  second  judgment, 
and  if  coupons  were  tendered  in  payment  of  it,  a 
third  suit  was  to  be  brought,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum, 
until  the  costs  and  penalties  and  interest  were  piled 
up  so  high  that  in  very  terror  the  tax-paj’er  would 
be  compelled  to  pay  up  in  money.  This  Act,  con- 
structed upon  the  theory  that  the  State’s  judges  would 
be  a set  of  partisans  who  would  not  allow  the  tax- 
payers to  have  any  chance  in  a suit  with  the  State, 
was  at  once  put  into  operation  all  over  the  State 
where  tax-payers  were  standing  on  a tender  of  cou- 
pons, and  the  State’s  judges  justified  the  expectation 
that  the  Legislature  entertained  of  them.  Tax- 
payers were  denied  all  right  of  defence,  and  judg- 
ments were  entered  against  them.  Second  judg- 
ments, third,  and  even  fourth  were  entered  in  many 
cases,  and  the  process  went  on  indefinitely.  One 
E’icholas  hfeurohr  was  sued  in  the  Circuit  Court  of 
the  city  of  Richmond  for  §1.80  taxes,  which  he  had 
offered  to  pay  with  the  State’s  coupons.  He  was 


88 


History  of  the 


denied  all  right  of  defence,  and  judgment  went 
against  him  of  course,  and  when  the  execution  went 
out  it  was  for  $18.93d^  This  is  no  exceptional  case. 
The  amount  of  taxes  in  each  case  is  small,  and  in 
the  great  majority  two  or  three  judgments  made  the 
costs  amount  to  more  than  the  original  debt. 

For  some  time  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  Act  of 
May,  1887,  the  bondholders  had  had  a representative 
in  Virginia,  one  James  P.  Cooper,  a citizen  of  Great 
Britain,  engaged  in  selling  coupons  to  the  tax-payers, 
and  giving  to  each  one  who  bought  a guarantee  to 
save  him  harmless.  He  could  well  do  this  while  he 
could  keep  out  of  the  State’s  own  courts,  because, 
if  the  State’s  officers  molested  his  clients,  he  could 
sue  them  for  damages  in  an  impartial  tribunal — the 
United  States  Circuit  Court— and  make  the  officers 
answer  for  their  wrongful  acts.  When  the  Act  of 
May,  1887,  the  “ Coupon  Crusher,”  was  passed, 
Cooper  at  once  saw  that  it  produced  a very  serious 
case  for  himself  and  the  tax-payers.  It  required 
them  to  prove  their  coupons  to  be  genuine  in  the 

See  records  of  the  Court,  Commonwealth  vs.  Neurohr.  See 
papers  on  motion  to  advance  McGahey  vs.  Virginia,  on  file  in 
Clerk’s  Office,  Supreme  Court  U.  S.,  October  term,  1888,  for 
way  in  which  this  act  was  put  in  execution  all  over  the  State. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


89 


State’s  courts.  The  only  evidence  by  which  this 
could  be  done  was  the  bond  from  which  the  coupons 
came,  or  the  testimony  of  expert  witnesses.  He  had 
bought  his  coupons  in  the  open  market,  and  he  did 
not  know  where  the  bonds  were  from  which  they 
came,  nor  could  he  produce  them.  Virginia’s 
highest  court  had  decided  that  the  Act  requiring  the 
bonds  to  be  produced  and  the  Act  forbidding  the 
use  of  expert  Avitnesses  Avere  valid,  constitutional 
Acts,  and  these  Acts  Avere  binding  on  her  lower  courts 
in  which  the  suits  were  to  be  brought.  It  looked, 
therefore,  if  the  “ Coupon  Crusher  ” Avere  a valid 
Act,  as  though  he  and  his  clients  were  caught  in  a 
mash-trap.  He  accordingly  filed  a bill  in  the  Cir- 
cuit Court  of  the  United  States,  setting  forth  all  the 
facts,  and  praying  the  Court  to  restrain  and  enjoin 
the  Attorney-General  of  the  State  and  the  attorney 
for  the  Commonwealth  for  each  county  from  putting 
this  Act  into  force  and  effect.  The  Circuit  Court 
granted  the  injunction. 

The  eleventh  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  provides  that  “ the  judicial  poAver 
of  the  United  States  shall  not  be  construed  to  extend 
to  any  suit  in  law  or  equity,  commenced  or  prose- 


90 


History  of  the 


cuted  against  one  of  the  United  States  by  citizens  of 
another  State,  or  by  citizens  or  subjects  of  any 
foreign  States.”  Uow,  the  officers  of  the  State 
claimed  that  Cooper’s  suit,  while  nominally  against 
E.  A.  Ayers,  the  Attorney-General  of  Virginia  and 
the  others  named,  attorneys  for  the  Commonwealth 
for  each  county,  was  really  and  in  effect  a suit 
against  the  State  of  Virginia,  and  a suit,  therefore, 
which  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  was 
forbidden  to  entertain  by  the  eleventh  amendment 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The 
Attorney-General,  Mr,  Ayers,  accordingly  violated 
the  injunction.  He  was  summoned  before  the  court 
to  answer  for  a contempt,  and  was  fined  §500  and 
committed  to  jail  until  the  fine  should  be  paid.  He 
applied  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
for  a writ  of  habeas  corpus,  praying  that  he  might 
be  discharged,  upon  the  ground  that  the  Circuit 
Court  of  the  United  States  was  forbidden  by  the 
eleventh  amendment  to  entertain  jurisdiction  of  the 
suit.  The  question  raised  by  this  application  was 
not  a new  one.  It  had  been  raised  and  passed  on  bj' 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  cele- 
brated contest  between  the  Bank  of  the  United 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


91 


States  and  the  old  State  Banks.  The  old  State 
Banks,  which  dominated  the  Legislature  of  Ohio, 
wished  to  exclude  their  powerful  rival,  the  Bank  of 
the  United  States  from  any  share  in  the  banking 
business  of  Ohio.  They,  therefore,  moulded  the 
statute  laws  of  Ohio  to  this  end.  The  celebrated 
case  of  Osborn  vs.  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  9 
Wheat,  p.  738,  was  the  result  of  this  contest.  By 
an  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  Ohio,  passed  in  1819, 
the  State  of  Ohio  undertook  to  impose  an  annual 
tax  of  $50,000  upon  each  of  the  two  branches  of  the 
Ignited  States  Bank  established  in  Ohio.  The  Act  pro- 
vided that  the  auditor  of  the  State,  Ralph  Osborn, 
should  issue  his  warrant  to  any  person  he  might  ap- 
point, commanding  him  to  collect  from  the  bank  the 
amount  so  charged  against  it.  Osborn  being  about 
to  put  the  Act  into  force  and  effect,  the  bank  applied 
to  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  for  an  injunction 
to  restrain  him.  A preliminary  injunction  was 
awarded  which  was  served  upon  Osborn.  Notwith- 
standing which,  he  issued  his  warrant  to  one  Harper, 
who  went  to  Chillicothe  and  forcibly  entered  the 
vaults  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  situated  there 
and  took  from  them  the  sum  of  8100,000.  Whilst 


92 


History  of  the 


Harper  was  on  his  way  to  Columbus  to  turn  the 
money  over  to  the  treasurer  of  the  State,  the  injunc- 
tion was  served  on  him  also,  but  he  proceeded  nev- 
ertheless, and  delivered  it  to  the  treasurer  of  the 
State,  who  entered  it  upon  the  books  of  his  office  as 
so  much  of  the  State’s  money,  and  charged  himself 
as  treasurer  with  it.  He  did  not  mix  it  with  the 
other  moneys  of  the  State,  but  kept  it  in  the  treasury 
separate  and  apart  to  itself  in  a trunk.  The  cause 
proceeded  to  a final  decree,  when  the  Court  decreed 
that  the  treasurer  should  return  the  money  to  the 
bank,  which  he  refused  to  do,  and  for  refusing  to  do 
this  the  Court  attached  him  for  contempt,  and  com- 
mitted him  to  jail.  It  also  appointed  three  seques- 
trators, and  directed  them  to  seize  this  identical  fund 
and  bring  it  into  court.  The  sequestrators  went 
into  the  State’s  treasury,  by  virtue  of  the  command 
of  the  order  of  sequestration,  seized  the  fund  and 
brought  it  into  court,  when  it  was  returned  to  the 
bank,  and  the  State’s  officers  were  perpetually  en- 
joined from  putting  the  Act  of  the  Ohio  Legislature 
into  force  and  effect.  Much  of  this  !Mr.  Wheaton’s 
report  of  the  case  fails  to  disclose.  But  an  inspec- 
tion of  the  record  in  the  clerk’s  office  of  the  Supreme 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


93 


Court  of  the  United  States  will  disclose  it  all.  The 
case  was  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  where  the  action  of  the  lower  court 
was  approved  and  affirmed.  This  was  in  the  good 
old  days  before  labor  strikes,  Farmers’  Alliances, 
Virginia  Repudiators,  and  Silver  Legislation  had 
demoralized  Legislatures  and  overawed  all  the  func- 
tionaries of  government.  It  was  claimed  in  Osborn 
vs.  the  Bank,  that  the  suit,  while  nominally  against 
the  State’s  officers,  was  really  against  the  State  of 
Ohio,  as  she  was  the  party  really  interested,  but  the 
Supreme  Court  replied  in  the  following  propositions: 

(a)  That  a Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States,  in 
a proper  case  in  equity,  may  enjoin  a State  officer 
from  executing  a State  law  in  conflict  with  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  when  such  execution 
will  violate  the  rights  of  the  complainant. 

(b)  That  when  the  State  is  concerned,  the  State 
should  be  made  a party  if  it  can  be  done.  That  it 
cannot  be  done  is  a sufficient  reason  for  the  omission 
to  do  it,  and  the  case  may  proceed  to  decree  against 
her  officers,  in  all  respects  as  if  she  were  a party 
to  the  record. 

(c)  That  in  deciding  who  are  parties  to  the  suit 


94 


History  of  the 


the  Court  will  not  look  beyond  the  record.  That 
making  a State  officer  a party  does  not  make  the 
State  a party,  although  her  law  may  prompt  his 
action,  and  she  may  stand  behind  him  as  the  real 
party  in  interest.  That  a State  can  be  made  a party 
only  by  shaping  the  bill  expressly  with  that  view, 
as  where  individuals  or  corporations  are  intended  to 
be  put  in  that  relation  to  the  case.” 

These  doctrines  were  again  announced  and  acted 
on  by  the  Supreme  Court,  in  Davis  vs.  Gray,  16 
Wallace,  S.  C.  R.  203 ; when  it  enjoined  the  Gover- 
nor of  Texas  from  executing  an  Act  of  the  Legis- 
lature which  was  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  or 
the  United  States.  They  announced  a plain,  intel- 
ligible rule  for  determining  whether  a given  suit 
was  a suit  against  a State ; to-wit : whether  she  is 
named  upon  the  record.  If  she  were  it  was  a suit 
against  the  State.  If  she  were  not,  then  the  suit 
was  not  against  her.  Tested  by  this  rule.  Coop- 
er’s suit  was  certainly  not  against  the  State  of 
Virginia,  for  she  was  not  named  as  a defendant. 
Ilis  suit  wms  against  her  officers  alone,  to  enjoin  them 
from  putting  into  force  an  Act  of  the  Virginia  Leg- 
islature, which  the  Constitution  of  the  United 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


95 


States  had  forbidden  that  Legislature  to  pass.  The 
Supreme  Court,  however,  revised  the  doctrine  of 
Osborn  vs.  the  Bank,  and  Davis  vs.  Gray,  and  held 
that  they  did  not  furnish  the  true  rule.  That  the 
true  question  was  whether  the  State  was  the  party 
really  interested,  whoever  might  be  named  on  the 
record,  and  that  the  State  of  Virginia  was  the  party 
really  interested  in  Cooper’s  suit,  and  that  it  was 
therefore,  really  a suit  against  Virginia,  and  one  of 
which  the  Circuit  Court  had  no  jurisdiction.  It  ac- 
cordingly discharged  the  Attorney-General  from 
custody.^^ 

This  decision  relieved  the  officers  of  the  State 
from  all  embarrassment,  and  placed  those  who  had 
tendered  coupons  at  their  mercy.  Suits  were  pros- 
ecuted against  them  all  over  the  State;  the  State 
courts  refused  to  allow  them  to  make  any  defence ; 
judgments  with  costs  were  entered  against  them  ; 
second  judgments  on  these  with  second  costs  were 
added;  third  judgments  with  third  costs  were  added 
to  these,  and  so  the  iniquity  went  on. 

Meanwhille  test  cases  were  made  up  and  carried 
to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  calling 


^^Ex-parte  Ayres  123,  U.  S.  R.,  443. 


m 


History  of  the 


in  question  the  constitutionality  of  the  “ Coupon 
Crusher”  and  the  Acts  which  authorized  the  bonds 
to  be  called  for,  and  which  forbade  the  use  of  expert 
testimony.  These  came  on  to  be  heard  by  it  in  the 
spring  of  1890,  and  are  reported  in  the  135th  rob  U. 
S.  R.,  662,  McGahey  vs.  Virginia.  The  Court  held 
the  Act  requiring  the  bond  to  be  produced,  and  the 
Act  forbidding  the  use  of  expert  testimony,  to  be 
repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
and  void,  but  it  declined  to  pass  upon  the  question 
whether  the  Act  requiring  tax-payers  to  be  sued  was 
valid  or  void,  wholly  ignoring  that  question,  which 
was  the  first  one  presented  to  it  in  McGahey’s  case, 
and  the  really  vital  one ; the  others  being  of  no  con- 
sequence Avhatever,  if  the  State  w-as  to  be  allowed 
to  drag  coupon  tenderers  before  her  own  courts  to 
be  dealt  with  there  as  she  desired. 

If  the  Court  had  not  ignored  the  question  whether 
the  “ coupon  crusher  ” was  valid  or  not,  this  long 
controversy  would  soon  have  been  brought  to  a con- 
clusion in  one  way  or  the  other.  If  it  had  held,  as 
it  w^as  bound  to  hold  if  it  passed  on  the  questions, 
that  the  Act  impaired  the  obligation  of  the  State’s 
contract  and  was  void,  the  creditors  would  have  been 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


97 


put  back  to  the  position  they  occupied  when  it  was 
passed,  aud  they  would  very  soon  have  compelled 
the  State  to  make  a settlement  that  would  do  them 
justice.  I at  once  prepared  new  cases  and  carried 
them  to  the  Supreme  Court.  Each  case  involved 
the  single  question  whether  the  “ coupon  crusher 
was  or  was  not  constitutional,  and  in  deciding  these 
the  Court  would  have  been  compelled  to  pass  upon 
the  validity  of  the  Act.  It  had  used  the  following 
language,  however,  in  deciding  McGahey  vs.  Vir- 
ginia : 

“ It  is  certainly  to  be  wished  that  some  arrange- 
ment may  be  adopted  which  will  be  satisfactory  to 
all  parties  concerned  aud  relieve  the  courts  as  well 
as  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia,  whose  name  and 
history  recall  so  many  interesting  associations,  from 
all  further  exhibition  of  a controversy  that  has  be- 
come a vexation  and  a regret.” 

The  alternatives  now  oftered  to  the  bondholders 
were  very  embarrassing.  On  the  one  side  there 
were  the  obvious  arguments  that  proved  the  “cou- 
pon crusher”  to  be  void,  and  in  speaking  of  it  the 
Court,  while  not  expressly  condemning  it,  had  used 
language  which  seemed  to  indicate  that  it  would 


98 


History  of  the 


condemn  it  when  it  should  pass  upon  it.  On  the 
other,  here  w&s  this  distinct  request  from  the  Court 
tliat  the  parties  should  settle  the  controversy  hy  ne- 
gotiation and  remove  it  from  the  courts. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  bondholders  re- 
solved to  enter  into  negotiations.  They  were  set  on 
foot  under  the  superintendency  of  ex-President 
Cleveland,  Hon.  Thomas  P.  Bayard,  Hon.  E.  J. 
Phelps,  and  a number  of  gentlemen  distinguished 
in  finance;  and  the  State’s  authorities,  mindful  of 
the  terrible  drubbings  they  had  received,  became 
reasonable,  and  the  negotiations  happily  resulted  in 
a settlement  which  increases  the  amount  that  the 
bondholders  will  receive  very  materially;  so  that 
the  creditors  really  scored  a great  triumph  by  their 
long  and  persistent  litigation.  In  spite  of  all  their 
disadvantages,  they  drove  the  State  from  the  posi- 
tion on  which  she  had  planted  herself,  and  forced 
her  to  pay  them  much  more  than  she  had  declared 
as  her  ultimatum.  I was  very  proud  of  the  result, 
for,  single-handed  and  alone,  I had  forced  this  settle- 
ment, with  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial 
departments  of  the  government,  and  an  overwhelm- 
ing majority  of  the  people  of  the  State  against  me. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


99 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SO  far  this  history  has  dealt  with  those  matters 
which  create  a connected  narrative.  There 
have  been  many  incidental  matters,  however, 
which  are  quite  well  worth  relating,  and  these  will 
now  be  grouped  in  narrative  form  as  nearly  as  their 
nature  will  permit. 

The  white  people  of  Virginia  are  not  a people  to 
do  things  by  halves.  Whilst  they  believed  a moral 
obligation  rested  on  them  to  struggle  for  the  pay- 
ment of  their  debt  they  struggled  for  it  with  all  their 
energy  and  force.  When  the  conclusion  was  finally 
reached  that  they  had  done  all  for  the  debt  that  their 
duty  call  ed  on  them  to  do,  and  that  since  a further  strug- 
gle for  it  might  endanger  their  civilization,  the  whole 
people  solidified  to  the  proposition  that  they  would 
beat  the  coupon  if  it  were  in  the  power  of  the  State 
to  destroy  it,  and  their  purpose  manifested  itself  in 
every  possible  way.  Tax-payers  were  necessary  for 
the  use  of  coupons,  and  almost  all  the  tax-payers  are 


100 


History  of  the 


white.  It  was  with  the  utmost  difficulty  I could 
first  get  tax-payers  enough  to  allow  me  to  use  their 
names  to  make  up  the  necessary  cases  to  test  the 
State’s  laws.  From  the  tiuie  the  Legislature  elected 
in  the  fall  of  1883  assembled  it  commenced  the  en- 
actment of  statutes  aimed  at  supplementing  and 
making  eflectual  the  statutes  passed  by  the  Read- 
justers to  destroy  the  coupons.  On  the  21st  of 
December,  1883,  it  passed  joint  resolutions  declaring 
the  settled  purpose  of  the  people  of  Virginia  to  re- 
pudiate and  to  refuse  to  pay  the  coupons.^  The 
same  thing  was  again  resolved  as  earnestly  as  before 
on  the  19th  March,  1884.-  This  Act  provided  that 
whenever  a coupon  found  its  way  into  the  treasury 
it  should  be  charged  against  the  principal  of  the 
bond  from  which  it  came,  and  when  enough  so  came 
in  the  principal  of  the  bond  should  be  declared  paid 
in  full. 

Another  statute  forbade  any  person  to  sell  the 
State’s  coupons  to  her  tax-payers  unless  he  paid  her 
^1,000  per  annum  license  tax  in  towns  of  more  than 
10,000  inhabitants  and  §500  in  other  counties  and 


’Acts  1883-’84,  p.  7. 
■■’Acts  1883-’84,  p.  721. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy.  101 


towns,  and  in  addition  20  per  cent,  tax  on  the  face 
value  of  the  coupon  sold.  This  Act  has  since  been 
declared  unconstitutional  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  in  a case  I took  there.^ 

Another  statute  charged  any  lawyer  who  should 
bring  a suit  under  the  act  to  recover  back  money 
paid  on  coupons  (Coupon-Killer  Ko.  1)  a license  tax 
of  $250  in  addition  to  his  regular  license  tax.'^ 

Another  Act  provided  further,  that  whenever  a 
judgment  was  rendered  against  the  State  under  the 
Act  for  recovering  back  money  paid  after  a tender  of 
coupons,  the  attorney  for  the  Commonwealth  should 
take  an  appeal,  whether  there  were  grounds'for  the 
appeal  or  not.  Of  course  the  plain  object  of  this 
Act  was  to  have  many  thousand  cases  pending  at 
once  upon  the  docket  of  the  appeal  court,  which 
would  postpone  suitors  so  long  they  would  give  up 
the  contest.® 

An  Act  already  referred  to"  forbade  any  court  to 
enjoin  a collector  from  seizing  on  a tax-payer’s  prop- 

’Jn  re  Brown,  135  U.  S.  R.  701. 

‘Acts  1883-’84,  p.  596. 

*Acts  1883-’84,  p.  504. 

°Act  of  January  26,  1882. 


102 


History  of  the 


erty  after  a tender  of  couponB.  Another  Act  forbade 
any  one  to  sue  a collector  for  damages  for  levying  on 
his  property  after  a tender  of  coupons/  Another 
Act  forbade  license  taxes  to  be  paid  with  coupons, 
whether  by  a straight  tender,  or  under  the  act  of 
January,  1883.  (Coupon-Killer  Ko.  1.)*  On  the  1st 
of  March,  1886,  it  passed  an  Act  providing  that  any 
lawyer  Avho  gave  the  benefit  of  his  professional  ser- 
vices to  any  one  asserting  legal  rights  based  on  the 
State’s  coupons  should  be  guilty  of  barratry  and  be 
disbarred.®  And  at  the  same  time  it  passed  another 
providing  that  whoever,  not  being  a lawyer,  should 
give  any  one  assistance  in  making  good  his  rights 
based  upon  her  coupons,  should  be  guilty  of  cham- 
perty and  be  fined  $300  and  imprisoned  sixty  days. 

When  these  statutes  were  passed  I had  succeeded 
in  forming  a very  considerable  party  of  tax-payers 
who  were  tendering  coupons  and  refusing  to  pay 
anything  else.  Instigated  by  the  executive  oflicers 
of  the  State,  the  grand  jury  of  the  city  of  Richmond 
commenced  finding  criminal  indictments  against  me. 


’Acts  1883-’84  p.  527. 

“Acts  1883-’84  p.  603,  section  112. 
“Acts  1885-’86  p.  384. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


103 


under  the  statutes  against  barratry  and  champerty, 
and  also  against  my  clients  who  were  standing  on 
their  tender  of  coupons  in  defiance  of  the  State’s 
laws.  I at  once  saw  that  this  was  the  most  danger- 
ous blow  that  had  yet  been  aimed  at  me,  and  that 
unless  T could  parry  it,  it  would  break  down  my 
party.  Tax-pa^’ers  would  not  sufier  criminal  indict- 
ments and  trials  for  the  saving  involved  in  the  use 
of  coupons. 

The  Acts  of  the  State,  which  the  grand  jury  was 
setting  in  motion,  were  plainly  repugnant  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  and  the  matter  had 
been  so  fully  discussed  in  every  form  that  each  grand 
juror  knew  very  well  he  was  giving  his  aid  to  en- 
forcing statutes  forbidden  by  the  Constitution.  The 
grand  jury  was  composed  of  merchants,  and  there  is 
nothing  a merchant  dreads  more  than  a suit.  I took 
a very  advanced  resolution.  I sued  the  members  of 
the  grand  jury  in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court 
for  damages,  for  giving  their  aid  and  assistance  to 
enforcing  State  laws  repugnant  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  I announced  through  the 
public  press  that  whenever  the  grand  jury  found  an 
indictment  against  me  or  one  of  my  clients  under 


104 


History  of  the 


the  State’s  unconstitutional  laws,  I should  sue  it  for 
damages  in  the  United  States  Court.  This  action 
produced  a prodigious  sensation.  The  grand  jury 
have  always  been  looked  on  in  Virginia  as  something 
sacred,  and  for  profane  hands  to  be  laid  upon  it,  was 
like  desecrating  the  very  altar  itself.  My  course 
had  the  desired  effect,  however.  The  grand  jury  re- 
fused to  make  any  more  presentments  and  handed 
in  a written  report  to  the  Court,  in  which  it  stated 
that  it  had  sufficient  evidence  on  which  to  indict  Mr. 
lioyall,  but  that  as  he  had  announced  he  would  sue 
them  for  damages  in  the  United  States  Court  if  they 


10  Their  report  is  as  follows: 

To  the  Hon.  Thomas  S.  Atkins, 

Judge  of  tlie  Hustings  Court: 

The  grand  jurors  for  the  February  term,  1887,  respectfully 
represent  to  your  Honor,  that  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties, 
and  after  tliej'  had  been  properly  sworn,  there  was  presented 
and  sent  to  them  an  indictment  charging  one  William  L. 
Royall  with  an  offence  against  the  laws  of  this  State,  known 
as  barratry.  They  would  represent  there  was  sufficient  evi- 
dence before  them  to  justify  bringing  in  a true  bill  against 
said  Royall,  for  the  alleged  offence,  but  they  respectfully  de- 
cline to  bring  in  said  true  bill,  because: 

1st.  They  are  informed  that  the  previous  special  grand  jury 
have  been  sued  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  for 
the  Eastern  District  of  Virginia,  in  damages  for  bringing  in 
a similar  indictment  against  said  Royall. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy.  105 


indicted  him,  they  must  decline  to  find  the  indict- 
ment.'” 

On  this  the  Court  issued  a rule  against  me  requir- 
ing me  to  show  cause  why  I should  not  be  fined  and 
imprisoned  for  intimidating  the  grand  jury  in  the 
discharge  of  its  duties,  and  the  attorney  for  the 
Commonwealth  filed  an  information  against  me  un- 
der the  statute  for  intimidating  the  grand  jury  in  the 
discharge  of  its  duties.  I was  tried  on  this,  con- 
victed, fined  $150,  and  committed  to  jail  until  the 
fine  should  be  paid." 

I refused  to  pay  the  fine  and  applied  to  the  Circuit 


2.  Said  Royall  has  given  notice  in  the  newspapers  of  the 
city  that  he  would  bring  suit  against  all  other  grand  juries 
who  dared  to  indict  him.  For  these  reasons  they  respectfully 
submit  that  they  ought  not  to  bring  in  the  above  mentioned 
indictment,  because  tliej’  would  thereby  subject  themselves 
to  possible  pecuniarj'  loss,  and  loss  of  time,  and  until  they 
have  ample  protection  against  these  intimidations  and  threats 
in  the  discharge  of  their  lawful  and  sworn  duties. 

W.  W.  TIMBERLAKE,  Foreman. 

(See  records  of  the  Hustings  Court  of  the  city  of  Richmond 
for  February,  1887.) 

’^Records  of  the  Hustings  Court  of  the  city  of  Richmond, 
Commonwealth  vs.  Wm.  L.  Royall. 


108 


History  of  the 


Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Eastern  District 
of  Virginia,  for  a writ  of  habeas  corpus,  to  discharge 
me  from  m3'  imprisonment,  upon  the  ground  that 
my  conviction  was  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of 
tlie  United  States.  That  Court  held  that  it  is  one  of 
tlie  rights  guaranteed  to  every  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  to  sue  any  person  whatever  in  the  United 
States  Court,  and  m3’  conviction  was  therefore  re- 
pugnant to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  it  ordered  m3’  discharge  from  jail.^-  An  execu- 
tion was  sent  out  from  the  Hustings  Court  against 
me  for  the  fine  of  §150,  aud  I invited  the  officer  to 
]e\’3’  it  upon  my  library.  lie  declined,  however,  and 
made  the  following  return  upon  it  to  the  Court : 

“ The  records  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Virginia,  show  that 
William  L.  Ro3’all,  after  being  arrested  on  a capias 
issued  on  the  judgment  of  the  Hustings  Court,  on 
which  the  within  execution  was  issued,  was  discharged 
on  a writ  of  habeas  corpus  issued  by  said  United  States 
Court,  upon  the  ground  that  his  conviction  was  void, 
as  being  forbidden  b3’  the  Constitution  of  the  United 

“Ex-parte  tVm.  L.  Royall — records  Circuit  Court  U.  S.,  E. 
D.  Ya.,  at  Richmond. 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy. 


107 


States.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  if  I levied  the 
within  execution,  I should  make  myself  liable  for 
trespass  in  said  United  States  Court,  and  therefore 
decline  to  levy.  I submitted  the  question  to  the 
Commonwealth’s  attorney  of  the  city  of  Richmond,, 
and  the  Attorney-General  of  Virginia,  and  both  ad- 
vised me  that  I should  not  levy. 

JOHX  MACOJ7,  D.  S.  for 

R.  A.  Carter,  Sergt. 

December  21,  1888.”'^ 

The  Legislature  continued  to  enact  every  scheme 
that  could  be  suggested  into  a statute.  On  the  27th 
February  it  passed  an  act  of  limitations  respecting- 
the  coupons,  although  on  their  face  they  are  receiva- 
ble at  any  time  in  the  future.  In  other  words,  it 
forbade  its  officers  to  pay  them  ; it  forbade  them  to- 
receive  the  coupons  for  taxes,  and  it  made  it  as- 
nearly  impossible  for  the  tax-payer  to  compel  the 
officers  to  receive  them  by  legal  proceedings  as  it 
could  make  them,  and  then  provided  that  unless  they 
were  made  use  of  within  a limited  period,  the}' 
should  not  be  used  at  all.  The  Act  provided  that 

i^See  records  Hustings  Court  city- of  Richmond,  Common- 
wealth vs.  William  L.  Royall. 


108 


History  of  the 


they  must  be  utilized  within  one  year  from  the  time 
they  became  due,  or  they  would  become  worthless.** 
On  the  26th  February  it  passed  an  Act  for  indem- 
nifying out  of  the  State’s  treasury,  all  officers  who 
should  forcibly  compel  tax-payers  to  pay  in  mone}', 
notwithstanding  their  tender  of  coupons.*'' 

Notwithstanding  all,  the  use  of  coupons  increased, 
because  it  was  becoming  evident  to  all  that  the  law 
was  with  those  who  used  them,  and  that  the  United 
States  Circuit  Court  was  an  impartial  tribunal  in 


Acts  1885-’8C,  p.  312.  The  Supreme  Court  has  declared 
this  Act  void.  Ex.  p.  Brown  135  U.  S.  11.  701. . 

‘5  Acts  1885-’86,  p.  228. 

As  soon  as  this  Act  was  passed  the  Board  of  Indemnity, 
created  by  it,  issued  a circular  letter  to  all  count}'  officers  in- 
structing them  to  compel  tax-payers  to  pay  in  money,  not- 
withstanding a tender  of  coupons,  and  promising  them  indem- 
nity for  their  unlawful  acts,  out  of  the  State’s  treasury. 
Several  actions  for  unlawful  levy  and  seizure  of  property  were 
tried  in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  after  this  circular 
was  issued,  which  are  reported  in  29th  Feb.  Rep.  238  ; Willis 
va.  Miller.  I quote,  p.  245,  a dialogue  between  United  States 
Circuit  Court  Judge  Bond,  who  tried  the  cases,  and  Mr.  Ayres, 
Attorney-General  of  Virginia. 

Bond,  J.:  Mr.  Attorney  General,  when  you  signed  that  circu- 
lar and  that  guaranty,  did  you  know  that  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  had  decided  that  it  was  a trespass  for  a 
collector  to  levy  on  a tax-payer  after  a tender  of  coupons,  and 


ViRGiKiA  State  Debt  Controversy.  109 


which  the  rights  of  those  who  were  injured  by  the 
State’s  officers  would  be  vindicated.  The  State’s 
officers  continued  to  molest  my  clients,  and  I con- 
tinued making  them  pay  for  it.  K the  Supreme 
Court  had  left  matters  as  they  were,  the  State  would 
soon  have  been  forced  to  pay  her  debt  in  full.  But 
the  Act  of  May  12,  1887,  directing  all  persons 
tendering  coupons  to  he  sued  in  the  State’s  own 
courts,  was  passed,  and  the  Supreme  Court  mrllified 
all  that  was  done  to  arrest  the  State’s  officers  in  put- 


that  any  law  of  the  State  undertaking  to  protect  him  on  that 
trespass  was  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  void? 

Ayers,  Attorney-General:  After  the  last  decisions  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  made  in  the  beginning  of 
February  last,  I was  before  the  Legislative  Committee  having 
charge  of  that  subject.  The  meaning  of  those  decisions  was 
fully  explained  to,  and  understood  by,  that  committee,  and  the 
entire  Legislature.  This  Act  creating  the  indemnity  board, 
was  the  result  of  the  resolution  the  Legislature  came  to. 

Bond,  J. : Do  you  think  that  indemnifying  Act  a constitu- 
tional one,  or  that  any  Act  authorizing  one  citizen  to  commit 
a trespass  upon  another,  and  agreeing  to  indemnify  him  for 
all  damages  he  might  suffer,  would  be  held  to  be  constitu- 
tional by  the  courts  of  Virginia  ? 

Ayres,  Attorney  General:  Well,  I think  there  might  be  a 
good  deal  of  discussion  concerning  that. 

Bond,  J.:  Well,  we  won’t  discuss  it. 


110 


History  of  the 


ting  this  Act  into  force.  This  was  a terrible  blow 
to  the  ereditors.  Having  been  counsel  on  the  losing 
side  when  this  Act  was  before  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  I can  not  expect  to  be  eredited 
with  impartial  judgment  concerning  the  decision 
made.  But  it  must  be  a source  of  regret  to  all  con- 
servative and  right-thinking  men,  that  the  Supreme 
Court  felt  itself  eompelled  to  overthrow  the  time 
honored  doctrine  of  Osborn  vs.  the  Bank,  in  order 
that  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  might  find  a shelter 
under  which  to  trample  on  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  by  any  tricks  and  evasions  that  it 
chose  to  devise. 

The  State  of  Virginia  was  the  battlefield  of  the 
war,  and  her  people  are  very  far  from  having  reeov- 
ered  yet  from  its  ravages.  The  great  body  of  the 
people  are  very  poor,  and  they  feel  the  public  debt 
as  a heavy  burden  npon  them.  In  the  day  of  her 
prosperity  and  power  she  ceded  a royal  domain  to 
her  sister  States  comprising  with  her  the  Union — the 
northwestern  territory.  States  teeming  with  mil- 
lions of  people,  possessing  thousands  of  millions 
worth  of  property  have  been  formed  out  of  what 
she  cheerfully  gave  to  the  common  country.  In 


Virginia  State  Debt  Controversy.  Ill 


making  this  cession  she  stipulated  for  but  few  things, 
hut  one  was  “ that  the  necessary  and  reasonable  ex- 
penses incurred  by  this  State  in  subduing  any  Brit- 
ish posts  or  maintaining  forts  or  garrisons  within 
and  for  the  defence,  or  in  acquiring  any  part  of  the 
territory  so  ceded  or  relinquished,  shall  be  fully  re- 
imbursed by  the  United  States.’'^® 

The  United  States  Government  accepted  her  grant 
upon  the  express  understanding  that  it  would  repay 
her  these  expenses,  which  it  has  never  done.  With 
their  accumulated  interest  these  expenses  would  be 
a very  large  sum  now.  It  would  be  a graceful,  a 
generous,  and  a just  act  for  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  to  come  now  to  the  aid  of  the  poor 
old  impoverished  Commonwealth,  and  help  her  out 
of  her  trouble  by  assuming  a part  of  her  debt,  and 
relieving  her  from  the  burden  of  that  part. 


Va.,  R.  0.,  p.  40. 


536.3  R888 


309531 


